static IPs [was Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1]

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 26-Oct-19 04:19, Matthew Huff wrote:
> This is part of one of the many reasons corporate acceptance of IPv6 is so low. The IPv6 design appears to be oriented toward residential, ISP, and public wifi usages, with little care to corporate needs. Not only is static IPs desired, but in many cases required by regulation (Auditing, access, etc...). 

That is *not* a design issue. It's an ISP business practice issue, and it's why the RIRs have for a long time been assigning /48s for enterprises that want them.

> Things like DHCPv6 not supporting DNS server announcements is a good example (it's available recently, but not across all platforms). Private address may be a great thing for residential / public wifi, etc... but must be disabled in many, if not all, corporate environments.

Absolutely. They are a recommended default for the consumer market but I would expect most corporate deployments to disable them.

> Also, we have found that many software vendors certify their products for IPv6, but as soon as the PR release is done, their devs no longer test with IPv6 and their tech support almost always recommend disabling it the first time you open a ticket.

Again, it's a business issue over which paying customers have much more influence that anyone else, but only if they make it a commercial issue.

Progress will only come as more and more people stop putting IPv6 in the "too hard" basket. I really do understand that for people running actual services this is not a trivial thing, but it's a real chicken/egg situation, unfortunately. But the signs are good at last.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at lists.cluenet.de <ipv6-ops-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at lists.cluenet.de> On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 11:10 AM
> To: Michael Sturtz <Michael.Sturtz at PACCAR.com>
> Cc: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de; Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; Fernando Gont <fernando at gont.com.ar>
> Subject: Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1
> 
> Michael Sturtz wrote on 25/10/2019 16:03:
>> This sort of operational nonsense will limit the wider acceptance of 
>> IPv6!  I am responsible research and for the documentation and 
>> implementation of IPv6 for a Fortune 200 company.  We have locations 
>> worldwide.  The allocation of unstable end network addresses 
>> complicates the deployment and support of IPv6.
> most service providers view this as a commercial issue rather than a protocol issue.  This is just an observation, btw.
> 
> Nick
>