/27 the new /24

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Fri Oct 9 02:57:28 UTC 2015

In message <56172237.5030501 at satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes:
> On 10/08/2015 05:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the
> > global internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be
> > left behind, and your customers who have little or no other options will
> > suffer for it.
> ISP == "Internet Service Provider".  The key word here is "service". 
> tiedyenetworks.com is a provider of services to customers, and I suspect 
> those are retail customers.  What he just told you is that the service 
> he provides, in his experience, does not play well with IPv6 AS 
> "the future" (I just invested a fair amount of cred to get the books 
> recommended to me here on NANOG to get up to speed) but like early 
> versions of just about every thing and every product, there are still a 
> few potholes.
> tiedyenetworks.com, from my reading of this thread, has elected to limit 
> his service offerings to his customers that he can reasonably support. 
> That's good, solid business sense.  Nothing is worse than providing a 
> product that does not work as expected or advertised.  VW, anyone?
> > (windows and mac generate multicast by default)
> And unless there is a damn good need for that multicast traffic, it gets 
> blocked.  From my edge network, I block multicasts and broadcasts both 
> inbound and outbound.  When I was network admin for the web hosting 
> company I worked for, I also blocked a number of ports at my edge, ports 
> that had no business being used in the general case.  I had *one* 
> customer that needed to come in using 3309; I punched a hole in the ACLs 
> for that one customer, and damn carefully.
> > This is just *your* flawed perception. Have you bothered to be an
> > engineer and figure out _WHY_ it doesn't work?
> Maybe you missed his earlier declaration:  "I'm a provider, not a 
> developer."  He expects the equipment to work.  It doesn't.  Did he ask 
> his vendor?  I don't know, but my personal experience with 
> wireless-equipment vendors is not encouraging.  Some people don't have 
> the money, resources, or time to winkle out all the wrinkles, so they go 
> with what works in their situation.  Consider the rural market:  damn 
> few customers, so $150K engineers are out of the question.

I also saw that he was using a tunnel yet was unwilling to configure
the local network to account for this when testing yet was willing
to bag IPv6 due to the side effects of being behind a tunnel.

IPv4 also works poorly when you introduce a tunnel and the people
you connect to are idiots that block / don't handle PTB messages.

Do like for like testing before bagging the protocol.

20% of the US eyeballs have working native IPv6 without lots of
complaints.  If you are have problems over a tunnel and they aren't
you may want to re-evalute your opinion of IPv6 and look to getting
native connections.

IPv6 really does work as well as IPv4 give like for like connections.


> > I run IPv6 over my 802.11a/b/g/n networks; no one has even noticed!
> > (even with Truly Ancient Hardware(tm))
> That's your experience.  He has a different experience.  I suspect your 
> customer base is considerably more dense than tiedyenetwork.com's base. 
>   Did you say you are primarily a rural provider?  Mike did.  Your 
> earlier traffic suggests your base of operations is more in a city or 
> suburban environment.  Apples and oranges, if true.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org

More information about the NANOG mailing list