On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:57:08 -0400, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote:
zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift
Upgrade(tm).
You say that with such confidence! Doesn't make it true.
https://archive.psg.com/120206.nanog-v4-life-extension.pdf
randy, who works for the first isp to deploy ipv6 to customers
Also, the Randy who closed the ngtrans working group "declar[ing] victory"
yet having produced nothing. Dual stack is not a transition plan, and
never has been. It's a key factor in why we have such a fractured adoption
today.
If you've been completely ignoring IPv6 for 20 years, then it is indeed a
steep learning curve[*]. If you haven't been upgrading equipment, shame on
you! Otherwise, you've ended up with "IPv6 Capable(TM)" completely by
accident, but you still have to deploy IPv6. On the scale of a large
service provider (or enterprise, for that matter), that's not a trivial
process. While *I* could upgrade the tiny island of the multi-national
corp I work for [10 people, 1 (linux) router, 36 public facing networks]
overnight via a plan drawn on the back of cocktail napkin over a long
lunch, doing that over the entire global network is not going to happen
overnight; the other offices have much more involved infrastructure.
I'd like to hear from the Comcast's, TWC's, and Uverse's just how many
man-hours were involved in the planning, testing, training, deployment,
and troubleshooting of their IPv6 "transition". (I have a ppt of the
Uverse 6rd plan. I cannot imagine that mere document was produced in lass
than a day, not counting the data behind all those slides.)
[*] As I joked with a business partner recently as he had to learn "all
this crap about IPv6" for his CCIE recert, "you're a DoD contractor.
They've had an 'IPv6 Mandate' for decades. I still have the memo." That
mandate is for "IPv6 Capable"; they don't have any actual v6 anywhere.
