This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bjoern Buerger
b.buerger at pengutronix.de
Sat May 30 01:53:58 CEST 2020
Am Fri, 29 May 2020 schrieb Philip Homburg: > I don't see why promoting communication failures is a good thing. Current IPv4-only services already cause communication failures, because they lack support for the latest standard version of the IP protocol and it is happening in networks where you wouldn't expect it: There is a well known very large telco provider in germany who offers broad ipv6 support, even on mobile. But their invoices will never reach the customer if it's mailserver is on an ipv6-only system, because they are not even offloading to a dualstack gateway for compatibility and enduser support is unable to route any complaint to someone clueful. You can do this correctly on your side of the wire by implementing some form of translation (and you should), but you need cooperation on the other side. There is lot of systems out there, having Ipv6 support, but checking connection credibility via IPv4 (mostly seen in broken email spamfilter setups, but not limited to that) and some of them do it on purpose. Some of them have been running ipv6 for a long time in their network, so they should know better. If you want to increase IPv6 adoption rates significantly from where we are now, just throwing ipv6 on the network it not enough. You need to address a grave acceptance problem: Server Admins don't want IPv6 or are afraid of it without valid reason anymore (mostly based on fud). People need to understand: Supporting other ipv6-only networks doesn't necessarily mean that you have to go ipv6-only yourself. Dualstack will be completely fine, but IPv6 is not optional anymore. As Gert wrote: The network is usually not the main problem IMHO RIPE NCC should provide a good example by offering at least dual stack based services for all their services without excuses. IPv6 support should be considered state of the art now. Bjørn -- Pengutronix e.K. | Bjørn Bürger | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5002 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]