[App_rpt-users] IPV6 and upgrades --was: toy throwing time?

[Bryan Fields]

On 9/14/16 3:02 AM, Toussaint OTTAVI wrote:
> A NAT rule takes 10 seconds to set up for any network administrator, and 
> it just works. 

What if your service provider doesn't give you an IPv4 address?  Many service
providers only give IPv6 addresses now and use DS-Lite or even nat64.  In most
cases you do not have the ability to map ports on IPv4.

NAT is evil.

> Moreover, for those who definitely do not like NAT, there 
> are plenty of 44.x.y.z AMPR IPv4 adresses available to the HAM community.

Most hams cannot announce a subnet via BGP to their service provider.   The
IP-IP tunnel gateway all flows via one point in San Diego.  It's useless for VoIP.

> I'm working in IT services for small businesses. I do not use IPv6 at 
> all. 

You're doing a disservice for your customers if you do not enable v6 for them.
 IPv4 run out has made v4 expensive.

>  I absolutely do not need it, and most of our ISPs here do not 
> provide IPv6 connectivity. 

Your provider is deficient.  Many are, and the only way to get it fixed is by
demanding proper IPv6 deployment.

> Moreover, setting up an IPv6 network, and a 
> dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network, creates far more problems than it solves. 
> For example, I spent dozens of hours last month to track a bug in my 
> firewall's provider firmware, where IPv6 rules conflicted with IPv4 ones.
> 
> IMHO, IPv6 is absolutely not a feature I would request and/or enjoy, at 
> least for the next 10 years !

It's this Luddite attitude that has got us into the place we're at now in IPv6.

>50% of traffic on mobile networks to the major content providers is now via
v6.

We cannot afford to be left behind once again.
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net