Just to clarify - there's no transition involved - IPv4 to IPv6 is like going from the VINES protocol to IPv6: IPv6 may as well have been called "PROTOCOL 493" - it bares very little relation to the original protocol that brought us the internet as-it-is-today.
The deployment of IPv4 had nothing to do with other protocols and neither does IPv6 - EXCEPT for the fact that the use of the only (largely-available) "transition" method (SixXS and HE.net tunnels) is now coming face to face with media DRM, as media is taking over the internet. Sooo....WTF batman? On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
