IPv6 Ignorance

[JP Viljoen]

On 16 Sep 2012, at 6:53 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> 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.
> 
> http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?p=355722
> 
> http://forum.ubnt.com/showthread.php?t=53779

Yeah, there's a lot of people who rile against it because "then they have to do work"[0], or sometimes just because it's different. A typical argument I've gotten into is that someone reckons a getnameinfo()/gethostbyname() should Just Work™. Now typically where this breaks down is in coming from a dual-stack config which prefers v6 over v4, in that there are delays introduced while AAAA lookups are done, and the like.

Personally, I think all such reasons are … antiquated. Anyone got any suggestions on how to approach people who rile against it? Typically what I've gone with so far is to make the logical points, such as "if you want to connect on v4, then specify you want v4", but this is still often scoffed against.

-J

[0] - or rather, this appears to be the case