[afnog] Four Misconceptions About IPv4 to IPv6 Migration

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Sep/15 13:04, Andrew Alston wrote:

>  
>
> V6 is coming, there is no doubt about it.  If we don’t deploy it,
> we’re gonna be in trouble.  NAT is not a sustainable solution, never
> has been, never will be, and the world is running out of v4.  But
> until there is what I refer to as protocol parity, the deployment will
> be hampered, and that protocol parity is still (sadly) very very far
> away.  Right now, no matter how much you want to, you still have to
> build your v6 in a provider environment ON TOP of your v4, and you
> have to be VERY careful with your hardware purchasing decisions if you
> wish to avoid a situation where you will be stuck in this scenario for
> the long haul.
>
>  
>
> (Please don’t mistake what I am saying by the way, such things should
> not stop the deployment of V6 totally, and if you have to build v6 on
> top of v4 right now, its in your interests to do so, and that is what
> my employer has done, I am merely stating that it would make the case
> so much stronger if the protocols actually had parity in the
> functionality)
>

I don't think it is necessary to lay IPv6 over IPv4, unless you're
providing 6-in-4 services or some such.

We run native IPv6 across the board, and they pretty much run ships in
the night. IPv4 does what it does, IPv6 does what it does. They don't
intersect in any way.

Agree that the lack of MPLS parity between IPv4 and IPv6 makes it
difficult to do away with IPv4 entirely, but this is a specific use-case
which goes above and beyond the basics of rolling out IPv6, IMHO.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20150904/fa8706c7/attachment-0001.html>