Hello, On 26/11/2019 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:13:48 -0800 (PST) > From: Sabri Berisha <sa...@cluecentral.net> > To: Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> > Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 > Message-ID: > <1383247942.183700.1574756028904.javamail.zim...@cluecentral.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > ----- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: > >> I get that some people still don't like it, but the answer is IPv6. Or, >> folks can keep playing NAT games, etc. But one wonders at what point >> rolling out IPv6 costs less than all the fun you get with [CG]NAT. > When the MBAs start realizing the risk of not deploying it. > > I have some inside knowledge about the IPv6 efforts of a large eyeball > network. In that particular case, the cost of deploying IPv6 internally is > not simply configuring it on the network gear; that has already been done. > The cost of fully supporting IPv6 includes (but is probably not limited to): > > - Support for deploying IPv6 across more than 20 different teams; > - Modifying old (ancient) internal code; > - Modifying old (ancient) database structures (think 16 character fields for > IP addresses); > - Upgrading/replacing load balancers and other legacy crap that only support > IPv4 (yeah, they still exist); > - Modifying the countless home-grown tools that automate firewalls etc; > - Auditing the PCI infrastructure to ensure it is still compliant after > deploying IPv6; > > If it was as simple as upgrading a few IP stacks here and there, it would be > a non-issue.
No matter how complex is your network (and your teams), from my humble point of view, there is always something you can do regarding IPv6. The key is not to solve one million problems on one day. The key is to go gradually, one small block after another one. You can even keep all your internal network on v4 (forever if that is your intent ) and use IPv6 on specific portions of your network. > Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against IPv6 deployment; on the > contrary. But it is not that simple in the real corporate world. Execs have > bonus targets. IPv6 is not yet important enough to become part of that bonus > target: there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there > needs to be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6. > > IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed. I would have said the very very minimum could be to invest in a dual-stack 'proxy' for public-facing services; internal or external solution, you have the choice. And why even do that ? Because the other side is not only on IPv4. -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
