In message <AANLkTimNwxkB0xZ-OKP44DXKvfLHedwV8K3pEX4yawQx@mail.gmail.com>, Will iam Herrin writes:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby <nanogwp@gmail.com> wrote:
I also get why we need IPv6, that it means removing the NAT (which, surpr= ise surprise also runs our Firewall), and I that I might need new kit for it.
I am however *terrified* of making that move. There is so many new phrase= s, words, things to think about etc
The thing that terrifies me about deploying IPv6 is that apps compatible with both are programmed to attempt IPv6 before IPv4. This means my first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments are going to break my apps that are used to not having and therefore not trying IPv6. But that's not the worst part... as the folks my customers interact with over the next couple of years make their first not-quite-correct IPv6 deployments, my access to them is going to break again. And again. And again. And I won't have the foggiest idea who's next until I get the call that such-and-such isn't working right.
Regards, Bill Herrin
Well complain to your app developers. They don't have to suck when part of the network breaks. http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201101/how-to-connect-to-a-multi-homed-ser... If you just make sure your IPv6 path works that's 99.999% of the problem solved even with buggy apps. Also most broken apps will just be slow not fail completely. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org