In message <56172237.5030...@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes: > On 10/08/2015 05:50 PM, Ricky Beam wrote: > > You are an ISP. You don't get to say "NO!" to IPv6. It is what the > > global internet is moving towards. You _WILL_ support it, or you will be > > left behind, and your customers who have little or no other options will > > suffer for it. > > ISP == "Internet Service Provider". The key word here is "service". > tiedyenetworks.com is a provider of services to customers, and I suspect > those are retail customers. What he just told you is that the service > he provides, in his experience, does not play well with IPv6 AS > CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED IN AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT. On the one hand, IPv6 is > "the future" (I just invested a fair amount of cred to get the books > recommended to me here on NANOG to get up to speed) but like early > versions of just about every thing and every product, there are still a > few potholes. > > tiedyenetworks.com, from my reading of this thread, has elected to limit > his service offerings to his customers that he can reasonably support. > That's good, solid business sense. Nothing is worse than providing a > product that does not work as expected or advertised. VW, anyone? > > > (windows and mac generate multicast by default) > > And unless there is a damn good need for that multicast traffic, it gets > blocked. From my edge network, I block multicasts and broadcasts both > inbound and outbound. When I was network admin for the web hosting > company I worked for, I also blocked a number of ports at my edge, ports > that had no business being used in the general case. I had *one* > customer that needed to come in using 3309; I punched a hole in the ACLs > for that one customer, and damn carefully. > > > This is just *your* flawed perception. Have you bothered to be an > > engineer and figure out _WHY_ it doesn't work? > > Maybe you missed his earlier declaration: "I'm a provider, not a > developer." He expects the equipment to work. It doesn't. Did he ask > his vendor? I don't know, but my personal experience with > wireless-equipment vendors is not encouraging. Some people don't have > the money, resources, or time to winkle out all the wrinkles, so they go > with what works in their situation. Consider the rural market: damn > few customers, so $150K engineers are out of the question.
I also saw that he was using a tunnel yet was unwilling to configure the local network to account for this when testing yet was willing to bag IPv6 due to the side effects of being behind a tunnel. IPv4 also works poorly when you introduce a tunnel and the people you connect to are idiots that block / don't handle PTB messages. Do like for like testing before bagging the protocol. 20% of the US eyeballs have working native IPv6 without lots of complaints. If you are have problems over a tunnel and they aren't you may want to re-evalute your opinion of IPv6 and look to getting native connections. IPv6 really does work as well as IPv4 give like for like connections. Mark > > I run IPv6 over my 802.11a/b/g/n networks; no one has even noticed! > > (even with Truly Ancient Hardware(tm)) > > That's your experience. He has a different experience. I suspect your > customer base is considerably more dense than tiedyenetwork.com's base. > Did you say you are primarily a rural provider? Mike did. Your > earlier traffic suggests your base of operations is more in a city or > suburban environment. Apples and oranges, if true. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
