/27 the new /24

Mike mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com
Thu Oct 8 16:29:39 UTC 2015

On 10/08/2015 06:14 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 10/7/15 7:00 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> I don't see anyone wishing it went differnetly. I see someone 
>> pointing out the reality that lots of ISP's are way too late to 
>> delivering IPv6. *Every* ISP should have been planning to deliver 
>> IPv6 by the time the first RIR ran out of IPv4 addresses. 
> Look, I'm as much a supporter of delivering IPv6 as anyone. I've had 
> IPv6 enabled on my home network (and the small data center I run in my 
> garage) for over a decade now. In 2004, I made sure that IPv6 was 
> fully supported in the peer-to-peer stack I developed and that 
> eventually became RFC 7016. And for the last 5 years I've been pushing 
> for IPv6 support in the product I work on for my employer.
> But the reality is that there's a whole lot of small and medium-sized 
> ISPs run by fine, upstanding individuals serving their communities -- 
> even in and around the San Francisco Bay Area -- that have either no 
> or very limited (tunnels only) support for IPv6. That's the reality of 
> the transition. And threatening these folks with the attorney general 
> isn't the way to get them to adopt IPv6, nor is shaming them. They 
> will add IPv6 support when it is easy to do, when their staff has the 
> time, and when the economics make sense.

Plus one to that. We are such a provider, and IPv6 is on my list of 
things to implement, but the barriers are still plenty high. Firstly, I 
do have an Ipv6 assignmnt and bgp (v4) and an asn, but until I can get 
IPv6 transit, there is not much point in my putting a lot of effort into 
enabling IPv6 for my subscribers. Yes I have a HE tunnel and yes it's 
working, but it's not the same as running native v6 and with my own 
address space. Second, on the group of servers that have v6 thru the HE 
tunnel, I still run into problems all the time where some operations 
over v6 simply fail inexplictly, requireing me to turn off v6 on that 
host so whatever it is I'm doing can proceed over v4. Stuff like OS 
updates for example. Damm maddening. Can't imagine the screaming I'll 
hear if a home user ever ran into similar so I am quite gun shy about 
the prospect. Secondly, the the dodgy nature of the CPE connected to our 
network and the terminally buggy fw they all run is sure to be a never 
ending source of stupidity. Thirdly, some parts of my network are 
wireless, and multicast is a huge, huge problem on wireless (the 802.11 
varities anyways). The forwarding rates for multicast are sickeningly 
low for many brand of gear - yes, it's at the bottom of the barrel no 
matter how good or hot your signal is - and I honestly expect v6 to 
experience enough disruption over wireless as to render it unusable for 
exactly this reason alone.

The wired portion of my subscriber network is only slightly better, im 
pretty sure it can deal with v6 in the middle, but the question is still 
wether specfic CPE models can and which set of bugs I'll hit on my 
access concentrators passing our v6 over PPPoE. I just read about a 
cisco bug where enabling rp-filtering on v6 causes a router reload, 
which I would hit immediately since rp-filtering is a standard 
subscriber profile option here (trying to be a good netizen). How many 
other network destroying bugs await? The longer I wait on v6, the less 
work I will have to do dealing with bugs. So, as the original posted 
said, we'll do v6 when it's easy, when we have time, and when the 
economics make sense.


More information about the NANOG mailing list