Re: Hotels/Airports with IPv6

[Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org>]

Mark,

Few acceptance test regimes cover established feature testing. It's just too expensive. For example, an acceptance test 
of a firewall installation does not include validating the DPI implementation. Government and enterprise buyers rely on 
certifications, such as ICSA for firewalls, IPv6Ready for IPv6, and standards compliance, such as IEEE 802.11ac for 
wireless.  

Instead, an acceptance test exercises the full system to ensure that it hits predetermined performance benchmarks, 
meets all the customer's functional requirements, and is secure. If one of the several vendors in such a project 
unilaterally changes components to enable unspecified protocols or features, testing won't line up with the 
implementation, and people will be very unhappy with the presumptuous vendor. 

Having deployed many IPv6 upgrades in legacy networks, I don't see deferring IPv6 as a net higher cost. It would be 
nice to have now, but, as they say, the customer is always right. 

-mel via cell

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
>
>
> In message <DA95983C-71F1-4AA6-B431-2F2FFD515F33 () beckman org>, Mel Beckman writ
> es:
> > There is most certainly a cost to IPv6, especially in a large, complex
> > deployment, where everything requires acceptance testing. And I'm sure
> > you realize that IPv6 only is not an option.  I agree that it would have
> > been worth the cost, which would have been just a small fraction of the
> > total. The powers that be chose not to incur it now. But we did deploy
> > only IPv6 gear and systems, so it can probably be turned up later for
> > that same incremental cost.
> >
> > -mel via cell
>
> Since you have IPv6 capable gear your acceptance testing should be
> including the IPv6 side of it so there are no saving there if you
> are doing your job correctly.  It is hard to go back to the suppliers
> N years down the track and then say "This gear isn't working for
> IPv6" and request a return / fix.
>
> Turning on IPv6 later will ultimately cost more than doing it from
> the start.  You have to manage the potential disruption.  The
> difference in perception between "teething troubles" and "you may
> break the service" is huge.  If you havn't done proper acceptance
> testing or missed something there will be replacement costs.
>
> Mark
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org