Re: IPv6 - a noobs prespective

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <AANLkTimNwxkB0xZ-OKP44DXKvfLHedwV8K3pEX4yawQx () mail gmail com>, Will
iam Herrin writes:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Robert Lusby <nanogwp () 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: marka () isc org