/27 the new /24

Jon Lewis jlewis at lewis.org
Fri Oct 9 01:58:35 UTC 2015

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:

>> 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 are lots of transit providers that provide IPv6.  It really is
> time to name and shame transit providers that don't provide IPv6.

Unless he's buying from Bob's Bait, Tackle, and Internet (who's reselling 
service off his Brighthouse cable modem connection), I find it hard to 
believe there are "transit providers" in the NANOG region who still cannot 
provide dual-stack addressing and BGP for DIA.

>> 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

With some OS's (Apple) preferring v6 if it's there, it would actually be a 
bad idea to enable IPv6 for your subscribers before you have 
stable/reliable v6 connectivity hooked up for the network.

>> 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.

v6 routing doesn't always get the same level of scrutiny as v4.  i.e. 
Suboptimal v6 paths might get used for some time before someone with 
enough clue to notice speaks up.  Presumably, that will change as v6 
adoption gets more widespread.

  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
                              |  therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

More information about the NANOG mailing list