Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6 has come.. I find my experience with <large US-based ISP> support today Ironic.
Oh wait..
Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself.
Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted.
:sigh:
Having just returned from NANOG65/ARIN36, and hearing about how far IPv6
has come.. I find my experience with <large US-based ISP> support today
Ironic.Oh wait..
Hi, my name is Donn, and I’m speaking for… myself.
Irony is a cable provider, one of the largest, and earliest adopters of
IPv6, having ZERO IPv6 support available via phone, chat, or email. And
being pointed, by all of those contact methods, to a single website. A
static website. In 2015, when IPv4 is officially exhausted.:sigh:
Tech support websites are long tail
Pragmatists are focused on getting ipv6 to the masses by default in
high traffic use cases.
Sighing about edge cases in the long tail with ipv6 ... Not sure what you
expect.
<deleted comments about f5 not supporting standard ndp, which has caused me
CB
On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware.
Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...
So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6
adoption 
Was that a typo? Didn't you have to upgrade your network admins, too? <g,d&r>
Well, especially our copmany hire admins already familiar with IPv6. But
yes, some of our friends company had to upgrade admins too.
Anyone in a network administrator position struggling with IPv6 (and not willing to fix that out of their own initiative) has no business running any network.
You should hire better staff.
I don't understand the strategy here, how is that getting more traffic
going-through IPv6 help its adoption by the mass? IMHO it only helps
high-end, backbone type of network equipment producers sell more of
their big box with advanced IPv6 license. It has absolutely no help
with the long tail crowd, which really need more push and incentive to
support ipv6.
Cheers.
Which "big box" has an "advanced IPv6 license"?
CB
Getting IPv6 to the masses without giving them the ability to get their IPv6 problems
resolved seems not like a long-tail issue so much as a really poor choice of deployment
plans.
Just my $0.02.
Owen
I bet most money is spent on hiring software developers to change/review all BSS/NSS systems to adopt to IPv6
I bet most money is spent on hiring software developers to change/review all BSS/NSS systems to adopt to IPv6
You should hire a consultant who can then push the software developers to hire people to change/review [..etc..] 
Cheers,
Sander
Max Tulyev wrote:
On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware.
Certainly.
Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...
Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of:
1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not
all, customers
2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering
3) So stateful SLAAC
So upgrade hardware and network admins are NOT sufficient for IPv6
adoption
Upgrade IETF to upgrade IPv6.
Masataka Ohta
Max Tulyev wrote:
> On our network, we had to spent times more money in people than in hardware.
Certainly.
> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...
Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of:
1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not
all, customers2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering
Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically
when a new prefix appears.
Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely
using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). Apple does this on Darwin.
You have to supply the name and credentials (Preferences -> Sharing
Edit. Tick "Use dynamic global hostname" and fill in the details).
Microsoft does it with DNS UPDATE and GSS-TSIG after registering
the machine in the Active Directory database. If two vendors can
do this so can the rest.
This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to
allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could
even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to
take names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules
on demand as address associated with those names change.
Similarly with everything else that takes a address. It just
requires that you think. "There is a address/prefix here. How do
I automatically update it."
The DNS is a pull mechanism with updates being pushed to it. It
isn't that hard to design a generic push mechanism that applications
could hook into to receive noticed of address updates pushed to
them.
Mark Andrews wrote:
Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...
Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of:
1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not
all, customers2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering
Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically
when a new prefix appears.
Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces
for smooth ISP handover?
Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely
using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0).
How much is the customer support cost for the service?
This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to
allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could
even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to
take names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules
on demand as address associated with those names change.
As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically
renumber multihomed hosts and routers
The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator
Number Allocation Protocol HANA
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2090000/2089037/p124-kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890AD12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&CFTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194
which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is
doable.
But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with
NAT, 48 bit address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can
enjoy end to end transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here.
Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was
not necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes.
Masataka Ohta
Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently
connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it.
Thank you,
- Nich Warren
Worth*
Thank you,
- Nich Warren
Couldn't tell you:
An error occurred while processing your request.
Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864
Masataka: Is there an alt link? It sounds like it could be an interesting read.
Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Couldn't tell you:
An error occurred while processing your request.
Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864
Masataka: Is there an alt link? It sounds like it could be an
interesting read.
Sorry, that should have been a temporally link and the permanent one
should be:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2089037
Masataka Ohta