sob at academ.com
Thu Aug 23 20:19:01 UTC 2018
I am with Owen here. If the IPv6 management is working and reliable,
maintaining the IPv4 management infrastructure should not be needed.
Certainly, the ability to get to "working and reliable" is going to depend
on a host of factors, but a good architecture and using best practices
during the deployment of the IPv6 network will make it easier.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I don’t see much difference between v6 management addresses and v4
> management addresses when it comes to best practices.
> I will say that if it were my network, I’d move everything internal-only
> that I could to IPv6 as quickly as possible, freeing up those v4 addresses
> for other purposes (or if GUA, possibly monetization while they’re still
> Once you’ve got the ability to use IPv6 management addresses, what’s the
> point of maintaining legacy IPv4 management infrastructure? It’s just an
> albatross of dead weight hanging around the neck of your network.
> On Aug 23, 2018, at 10:14 , Justin Wilson <lists at mtin.net> wrote:
> We were having an interesting debate on IPV6 management on layer2
> devices. Does anyone have a best practice document they have seen for
> utilizing v6 Management addresses? I know Cisco has some extensive
> documentation on using v6 on their wireless products.
> I know everyone has thoughts so am interested in any best practices which
> have been presented to the community. I haven’t worried about management
> access on layer2 devices, as long as the layer2 devices can pass any cast,
> multicast, and other things v6 needs. However, I could see why you would
> want v6 management addresses.
> And go….
> Justin Wilson
> j2sw at mtin.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG