[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"

[Tim Chown]

On 29 Aug 2012, at 11:27, Tomas Podermanski <tpoder at cis.vutbr.cz> wrote:
> 
> Completely agree with that view. It seems to me that IPv6 community
> don't want to hear anything wrong about IPv6, specially from operational
> guys. It is not only about RA-Guard. Just same story we can see in cases
> like ND cache exhaustion, default route in DHCPv6, MAC address in DHCPv6
> etc.  We can observe endless discusses in IETF, nanog or this list,
> however with very small impact on standardization and in the result on
> implementation in the devices.

Well, each of the three issues you describe above have IETF drafts that are edging towards publication. These issues have been raised for some time. Some, e.g. DHCPv6 route option, invoke quite strong views, while others, e.g. ND cache exhaustion, are much simpler to address.

> Fore those who might be interested in our experience  with deploying
> IPv6 within university campus we sum upt it in
> http://ipv6.vutbr.cz/article/deploying-ipv6-practical-problems-from-the-campus-perspective/
> (and related presentation:
> http://ipv6.vutbr.cz/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tnc2012_slides_TncPresentation.pdf).
> There are described some of the biggest troubles that we had during
> deploying IPv6.

These are excellent... good writeups.

I share Owen's view - there are tradeoffs in deployment, and those vary with the scenario. And similar tradeoffs happen with IPv4.

Tim