[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Chris]

On 09/24/16 20:42, Dirk Munk wrote:

>
> Yes, they will coexist for some time. However, no one wants to maintain
> a dual stack network for any longer then necessary, and no one wants to
> build applications that support two stacks for any longer then necessary.
>
> So it's my guess many companies will go for the Facebook approach, IPv6
> only on the internal network, only dual stack systems for the internet
> facing systems.
>

Much of the last few posts is hypothetical anyway. V6 is needed
for the future. However, the idea of a unique address for every
device connected to the internet does look quite restrictive in
terms of subnetting and fine grained control of addressing within
an organisation. At present, I can define a mix of fixed or dhcp
addresses or define subnets in a short space of time and it's rock
solid reliable. Nat and port forwarding are very fine grained and
allow isolation of subnet address groups and forwarded ports, which
is very good for security.

For V6, there is also the problem of installed base of V4 kit and
existing topology at subnet level, which will be very expensive to
upgrade and to retrain staff to manage. It's not a zero cost game,
which is why overall adoption has been very low. While it may be
common in the rarified atmosphere of tech companies, it's still
pretty rare elsewhere afaics. Offering no particular advantage over
V4 for many applications, it's easy to see why that is the case.
Thus, V4 and 6 will coexist for the forseeable future.

As for all the talk about NAT and port forwarding being full of
problems and difficult to set up, just shows the lack of knowledge
in that area. It's been a run of mill standard technique for a
decade or more, that any it pro worthy of the name should be
familiar with...

Regards,

Chris