So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Benedikt Stockebrand]

Hi Nick and list,

Nick Hilliard <nick-lists at netability.ie> writes:

> On 29/05/2010 22:29, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>> I don't think so.  If we had stuck with IPv4 except for the address
>> size we'd still have, among other issues,
> [...]
>> - The need for VRRP, HSRP or passive routing daemons on all clients to
>>   set up redundant routers
>
> This statement makes it quite clear that you have never managed ipv6 in a
> reliable production environment on an ongoing basis.

Sorry Nick, but that's not true.  Have you ever seen anything
outside large scale enterprises or data center environments with
specialized technical staff?

I've seen way too many jack-of-all-trade sysadmins, the kind who know
way more about toner cartridges and Microsoft Office end user problems
than both of us together, trying to keep a number of small business
networks up and running.  And their colleagues, doing much the same
work within large enterprises with a huge number of points of sale or
home office users in rather remote locations.

Using Autoconf and Network Unreachability Detection for router
failover doesn't give you the fastest failover time, but at least it
gives these people a chance.

For the same reason, in these environments I'd rather use RIP{v2,ng}
over OSPFv[23].  You always have to find the balance between
easy-to-handle simplicity and ultimate-performance complexity on an
individual basis, and in all these cases it largely depends on the
people involved rather than the technology as such.


Cheers,

    Benedikt

-- 
			 Business Grade IPv6
		    Consulting, Training, Projects

Benedikt Stockebrand, Dipl.-Inform.   http://www.benedikt-stockebrand.de/