/27 the new /24
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
> CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED IN AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT. On the one hand, IPv6 is
> "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
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