Multiple vendors' IPv6 issues

Jared Mauch jared at
Wed May 27 19:20:55 UTC 2015

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:19:25PM -0700, David Sotnick wrote:
> The company I work for has no business case for being on the IPv6-Internet.
> However, I am an inquisitive person and I am always looking to learn new
> things, so about 3 years ago I started down the IPv6 path. This was early
> 2012.
> Fast forward to today. We have a /44 presence for our company's multiple
> sites; All our desktop computers have been on the IPv6 Internet since June,
> 2012 and we have a few AAAAs in our external DNS for some key services —
> and, there have been bugs. *Lots* of bugs.
> Now, maybe (_maybe_) I can have some sympathy for smaller network companies
> (like Arista Networks at the time) to not quite have their act together as
> far as IPv6 goes, but for larger, well-established companies to still have
> critical IPv6 bugs is just inexcusable!

	My current favorites are:

Which doesn't allow you to see the neighbors on an interface.  this is fun
when diagnosing qemu/kvm issues with the macvtap and hosts with ipv6.
turns out you to 'fix it' you need to make the macvtap interface promisc
as the icmpv6 messages don't make it through the macvtap driver to the VM
breaking neighbor discovery.

	You can guess how we saw the first bug with the second one.

	This isn't as bad as a colleague who told me he is taking
classes at a university whose professor  said that a /20 is neither a class A 
or class B allocation but in the middle, not knowing that CIDR has existed 
for the past 20 years.  Turns out we need a few more SMEs to teach people 
about CIDR and IPv6 addressing to prevent univeristy professors from 
teaching the next generation something that doesn't apply anymore.

	- Jared

Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at
clue++;      |  My statements are only mine.

More information about the NANOG mailing list