Re: /27 the new /24

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

(I'm going to regret this but...)

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Mike <mike-nanog () tiedyenetworks com> wrote:
> On 10/08/2015 07:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I can't remember the last time I saw a site stall due to reaching it over
> > IPv6 it is that long ago.
> > > It happens every day for me, which only amplifies my perception that v6
> > > IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
> >
> > Yet you refuse to troubleshoot your issues with it that are not shared by
> > others and blame the protocol for whatever is probably wrong with your own
> > network. Interesting tactic.
>
>
> Thats invalid. It matters not that you claim these isses are not 'shared by
> others' - they are experienced routinely by others, and it's growing worse
> as more 'services' are transitioned to 'v6' but then the attendant support
> such as monitoring and operational knowledge/experience hasn't caught up and
> those transitioned services fail on v6 silently for long periods of time.
> That is the majority of the v6 world today and it's useless to claim
> otherwise.

The sense I get from the the thread bits I read is generally:
  1) some (one, few, etc) folks are upset with v6 in their network or
their deployment or their experience
  2) some (many?) folks are pushing to 'move to v6!'
  3) anger

I think we should remember that:
  1) your network, your rules
  2) if you don't want to add v6 that's totally your call
  3) the v4 internet will start getting less used over time, and more v6
      stuff will appear
  4) eventually users on only v4 will get degraded/no service for things
      they want to do.

putting your head in the sand (on either side) isn't helpful here, and
trying to jam your favorite flavor of spam down the other person's
throat is only going to make them hate hawaii.

-chris
(I'm sure there's a Dune quote to be used here somewhere as well...)