[ipv6-wg] IPv6 only network (not just at RIPE xx meeting)

I guess this is one of the larger issues with running multiple protocols in parallel :)

One solution as a content-provider would be to get the services to be v6-only, and then implement workarounds (for example stateless nat46, 4to6 loadbalancers) on the edge to get the service on to v4 Internet. Most people monitor v4 and if v4 depends on a working v6 its a lot easier to make sure issues are noticed and fixed in time.

This is basically what i'm looking at for our services since I don't like the added complexity of running dualstack everywhere. (two of everything doesn't feel right unless its for redundancy, which it isn't in this case)

I've got no idea how to handle this on other services who aren't aware of the situation though.
Maybe create new best practices? :)

/Oskar Stenman

Skickat från min Sony Xperia™-smartphone

---- Geert Jan de Groot skrev ----

>
>Hi all,
>
>Not attending RIPE-meetings myself anymore these days, 
>I'm not sure whether (just) a IPv6-only network at a meeting
>is going to cut it. This has been done for a number of years worth
>of meetings and while the results are interesting, I'm not sure that
>a RIPE-meeting is a requirement to run these experiments.
>It makes perfect sense to run a V6-only network at home/office and
>get the experience all year, not just during a meeting.
>
>So, as a typical home user these days, I run a V6-network, 
>some pieces of it being V6-only, other places being V6-preferred,
>and the experiences are, eumm, mixed.
>
>I frequently find sites (at various ISP's) that are either partially
>or fully broken for V6. In many instances, happy eyeballs rescues things,
>that is, things seem just slow but not entirely broken unless one analyzes.
>
>Reporting a V6-broken website to it's hoster is, in many cases,
>a waiste of time. Helpdesks don't understand the problem.
>If I'm lucky I get a response. Problems are seldom resolved.
>I think I see this five times per month or so. Perhaps I should browse less.
>
>Thing is, we seem to be working on making the Internet V6-capable,
>but currently V6 performance and stability is a serious issue, especially
>when it comes to reporting problems. Happy eyeballs mean that
>the V6-network can, in many cases, just be switched off without 
>anybody noticing. We all know of stories of support/helpdesk folk
>telling people just to switch off V6.
>That's all nice if it'd just be an academic exercise but not if it
>is supposed to be the main bread and butter in the years to come.
>
>So, my question to the WG: does the WG think this is a problem, and 
>can we think of a way to get clueful v6 complaints to clueful handlers,
>instead of being ignored / misaddressed / ...?
>
>Geert Jan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20140601/c2d2504b/attachment.html>