On 26-Oct-19 04:19, Matthew Huff wrote:
> This is part of one of the many reasons corporate acceptance of IPv6 is so
> low. The IPv6 design appears to be oriented toward residential, ISP, and
> public wifi usages, with little care to corporate needs. Not only is static
> IPs desired, but in many cases required by regulation (Auditing, access,
> etc...).
That is *not* a design issue. It's an ISP business practice issue, and it's why
the RIRs have for a long time been assigning /48s for enterprises that want
them.
> Things like DHCPv6 not supporting DNS server announcements is a good example
> (it's available recently, but not across all platforms). Private address may
> be a great thing for residential / public wifi, etc... but must be disabled
> in many, if not all, corporate environments.
Absolutely. They are a recommended default for the consumer market but I would
expect most corporate deployments to disable them.
> Also, we have found that many software vendors certify their products for
> IPv6, but as soon as the PR release is done, their devs no longer test with
> IPv6 and their tech support almost always recommend disabling it the first
> time you open a ticket.
Again, it's a business issue over which paying customers have much more
influence that anyone else, but only if they make it a commercial issue.
Progress will only come as more and more people stop putting IPv6 in the "too
hard" basket. I really do understand that for people running actual services
this is not a trivial thing, but it's a real chicken/egg situation,
unfortunately. But the signs are good at last.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 11:10 AM
> To: Michael Sturtz <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Gert Doering <[email protected]>; Fernando Gont
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1
>
> Michael Sturtz wrote on 25/10/2019 16:03:
>> This sort of operational nonsense will limit the wider acceptance of
>> IPv6! I am responsible research and for the documentation and
>> implementation of IPv6 for a Fortune 200 company. We have locations
>> worldwide. The allocation of unstable end network addresses
>> complicates the deployment and support of IPv6.
> most service providers view this as a commercial issue rather than a protocol
> issue. This is just an observation, btw.
>
> Nick
>
