On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Steve Meuse <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> What do I mean when I say "it must support IPv6"? I mean two things. >> First, full feature parity with IPv4. Everything that works under >> IPv4 must work under IPv6. If you have exceptions, you'd better >> document them and have a remediation plan (or work-around if it is a >> deficiency baked into the standard; there are a few of which I'm >> aware). Second, the device must function perfectly in an IPv6-only >> environment, with not a hint of IPv4 addressing around. Dual-stack >> capability is nice, but should be an easy thing to provide if you can >> handle the first two requirements. > > > Well spoken RS, I'm cutting and pasting this one to my account team(s). Far > too many discussions about this with them recently. (really, you're just > *now* getting v6 to work on bundled interfaces?)
We've been doing this for years on both Juniper & IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be someone else. We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't actually *use* IPv6 internally or in their lab. We have been operating our network with IPv6 for many years now. I believe in most cases our connection to the management plane go IPv6 only as well. It's been fun to see the few SSH over IPv6 defects and other elements arise as time has passed, but those days are over. It's just tiring now and no longer amusing. (hey you kids, get off my lawn?). - Jared
