IPv6 Ignorance

[Tim Densmore]

On 9/16/2012 10:53 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
> some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
> if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
> our worries on the big guys like AT&T going IPv6 (which I'm sure but
> they're slow), but these small operators are a much bigger problem.

While I posted in that thread in favor of IPv6 Deployment, I have to 
admit that I'm somewhat sympathetic to their views.  Aside from being 
future-proof, what real purpose does being IPv6 "ready" do for a 
network/network operator?

Add cost is an obvious one I see right off the bat, honestly.  As of 
this morning, not a single switch on our network is capable of RA guard, 
and the chances of me getting money, or even chasing money for new 
switches is basically 0%.  A huge amount of equipment on our network 
doesn't speak v6 at all, and forklifting that out for a 0 dollar 
generating project is also a non-starter.  That doesn't even cover CPE, 
99% of which will also need to be replaced.  I'm using the v6 on my own 
network, and I have to tunnel because the adtran ta900 I'm using doesn't 
do v6.  I've just been told by Zhone, flatly, that they have no 
intention of doing v6 on their malc line. Etc, etc.  What does all of 
this gain me?  Pretty much the ability to see google and cisco web pages 
using my IPv6 IP.  I'll admit that I think it's pretty neat, but "neat" 
doesn't cover the bills.

Basically, I am deploying v6 because it seems like the longer I wait, 
the further behind I'll be, but the number of challenges I'm facing is 
large.  Some of them are "git er dun" challenges, like figuring out how 
I want to deal with DNS and that kind of thing, but many of them are 
simple economic roadblocks.  I can gut out the first, but I can't do 
much to overcome the second.  I can certainly understand why some 
networks are choosing to ignore v6 for the time being.

TD