In message <aanlktimnwxkb0xz-okp44dxkvflhedwv8k3pex4ya...@mail.gmail.com>, Will iam Herrin writes: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby <nano...@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-server-over-tcp 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: ma...@isc.org
