no problem, I came across wrong as well.

also thanks for the insight on the ipv6 peering situation, wasnt aware.

Chrysalis
Don't get us wrong we not having a go. However i suspect Pipexer and the others who don't back the immediate implementation on IPV6 work for large organisations. For me the company i work for has approx 150K users, plus millions of customers world wide.
The implementation of IPV6 at companies this size is not a small matter, compared to SMEs.
These companies can not afford to have unstable networks, or even worse holes though a bodged implementation/management caused by staff new to the technology.
If you have to stand up in front of the board asking for money, Its an easy sell a story to ensure that all networking kit is IPV6 capable as this is good practice and has little cost impact. Its a totally different matter to suggest a world wide project which had no business gain, will cost hundreds of millions to implement and test (especially given that a lot of projects will need to be delayed / retrofitted and then tested again (potentially losing business). Then we have penetration tests, all will need to be run again. All for no business gain, and with out the threat of business loss if this activity does not occur. It just wont happen

Andrew

Really its not just clicking enable on the routers and servers.

If your that intrested why don't you suggest taking part in a beta programme if / when occurs.

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Dec-13 19:06:42)

is no problem.

I agree in terms of business merit ipv6 has little immeediate gain other than to gain customers who specifically want it.

that was why I was suggesting it should be regulated in. Because I did already acknowledge the immediate business case isnt there, and of course with the possibility of things such as cg-nat there may not even be a long term business case.

zen have made their decision, I will still watch with interest in the future (I did slap plusnet as well in the past when they silently dropped ipv6 plans).

Excellent explanation I agree entirely with you.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

that was why I was suggesting it should be regulated in.

That seems rather heavy handed, illiberal, and prone to various issues. We can't on the one hand demand that government keep their nose out of the Internet then on the other ask that they mandate adoption of standards on it.

We can't have it both ways and I'd prefer it if the government didn't attempt to micromanage something they clearly don't understand.

That said Julian Huppert MP would be the man in this case, he being about the only MP I'm aware of who understands anything about the Internet.

isnt there other regulations on the internet that everyone has to adhere to? I would just see ipv6 as another one of those.

we are at a stage now where commercial devices have ipv6 already integrated, isp's are probably actually paying cpe suppliers to remove ipv6, and although you told me cg-nat is easier to add than ipv6, that seems diffilcult to accept as cg-nat is opening a whole can of worms, numerous apps would immediatly break with it, complications in isp side equipment forwarding traffic to the right users and more. ipv6 on the other hand is transparent to the end user, nothing is going to break unless someone makes an error in implementation. It has been around for a decade.

I see rolling out windows 8 to office desktops as far more risky and disruptive than adding ipv6 to the network stack, and I would be surprised if cg-nat generated less disruption than ipv6 as well. Obviously you know more than me on this but I think is fear more than anything else, just that 'risk' of something really breaking and then having to deal with an outage afterwards. The suppliers of network equipment cisco, juniper etc. will have been dealing with ipv6 for many years already and as such their code will be mature now.

It is also concerning now days business's still need an immediate business case, as if now is all that matters, its one reason why we dont have an edge as a country as we are always behind the trend.

has your company done any kind of live testing with ipv6? or its not even done that yet?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

isnt there other regulations on the internet that everyone has to adhere to? I would just see ipv6 as another one of those.

Why?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

has your company done any kind of live testing with ipv6? or its not even done that yet?

I work with tons of companies from Google right down to a company with a couple of sites. The really massive ones have some IPv6 in place though only on specific sections of their network, virtually all the rest haven't touched it.

Even on the really big boys IPv6 doesn't appear to be pervasive. Everything is still rolling on RFC1918 IPv4 with IPv6 in use as required.

People like their IT to just work and don't want to notice it.

My actual employer doesn't use IPv6 on our corporate network, but our software supports it. We ourselves have absolutely no driver to force our adoption of IPv6 at this time. We are way too small to have a shortage of RFC1918 address space.

Think you'll find most companies haven't done any 'live' testing of IPv6. We're familiar with the technology and comfortable with it but have no requirement to implement it. Our IT guys have plenty of other things to occupy their time.

Thank you for the reminder to do a dedicated IPv6 course though! I am due some training before the end of the business year and that'll do nicely.

EDIT: You seem to think this is flicking a switch and all will be good. Sadly not.

Edited by deleted (Tue 10-Dec-13 18:04:58)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I see rolling out windows 8 to office desktops as far more risky and disruptive than adding ipv6 to the network stack, and I would be surprised if cg-nat generated less disruption than ipv6 as well.

The difference being that rolling out Windows 8 has brought immediate benefits to the IT across everywhere it has been deployed. It comes on faster, it is more reliable, more secure, and more manageable, users can launch applications faster, their work is more secure because crashes happen less frequently - coupled with Office 2013 having improved document recovery features. They don't have to restart as often, Windows updates are seamless. Their internet browsing experience is also much better thanks to IE10. People figure out how to use it in no time and are grateful for the improvement.

What does deploying IPv6 do in benefiting everyone? The answer is nothing. No seriously, if I implemented IPv6 it would not benefit anyone whatsoever. The only thing it would do off the top of my head is make DirectAccess (a Windows 7 and even better in Windows 8 feature, by the way) much easier to configure, and a bit more reliable for the users.

But of course, you don't like Windows 8 do you so that is why you would see it more risky and disruptive...

Again you have not yet given a strong case why a home user or small to large business needs to implement IPv6 this year other than the wishy washy "it is good for the future of the internet". This is a nonsense argument. I believe you aren't even familiar with the features of IPv6 which would make it appealing because otherwise you would have mentioned them.

Even as far as this forum goes, I am probably one of the biggest internet buffs you will ever meet - I hate traffic shaping, I love good practice, I like short pings, good traceroutes, good DNS services, etc, etc, but IPv6 worries me less than all those former issues right now.

Actually on a very serious note if you want to blame people about lack of IPv6 it is those very people/companies who are still using legacy programs and operating systems such as Windows XP - because they are not driving any need for things like IPv6. In fact, my recent deployment of Windows 8 (which has technologies like DirectAccess) is why I need IPv6 internally to work (and also beneficial if on the internet connection - but not essential). In that regard I actually have very little sympathy as to why a lot of companies have not moved to Windows 7 by now, they had clear deadlines on when it would run out of support and they have also known since the release of Windows Vista (or maybe 7) of the new features provided by a newer OS, yet some have sat on their lazy backsides and are now scrambling like idiots to get systems upgraded. The pressures to move to IPv6 are simply not as important right now and hence the points I am making. I also have very little understanding for organizations upgrading from XP to 7 rather than going straight to 8. The usual excuse is "Oh well some applications don't work on Windows 8" ---- but they do on Windows 7? Yeah whatever.

I am not arguing against IPv6 but I am arguing about the time-scales that you think it is important service providers move on.

more than flicking a switch but I dont find configuring ipv6 much harder than configuring a new ipv4 block.

I was just asking tho if you did any testing after/before you configured so you know if will work or not when you do eventually turn on.