Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

[Mark Foster <blakjak () blakjak net>]

On 10/06/2016 4:38 p.m., Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It would be nice to live in a world where that were the case. However, the
> > world we live in is run my bean counters, and the marketing department.
> > IPv6 is a huge project that is seen by them as an unnecessary expense.
> Absolute BS.  IPv6 has never needed to be a huge project for a ISP
> compared to everything else a ISP does.  It required some research
> and ensuring that you bought compatible equipement and things fell
> due for replacement.  If you failed to do the research and therefore
> needed to do everthing in a rush then it might seem like a huge
> project.

Router-jockeys and purists often cite this. I've done it myself.
But there are a lot more moving parts in most service providers than 
simply the ones and zeros.
Bandwidth Accounting, Billing, Provisioning systems in particular - and 
the developers/maintainers of these who have little or no knowledge of 
IPv6 and perhaps not a lot more than that of IPv4, except that it's more 
easily human-read and digested?

This was very much my experience in more than one ISP job over recent 
years - the network kit is more than capable, it's the bits around the 
outside that need work.
Even if routing and switching kit was subject to lifecycle-replacement 
every 5 years or so, software components that are in the background, 
'just work' and suddenly are very black-boxy because the author has long 
since left the organisation and noone left behind knows how to make it 
IPv6ready... sometimes the forklift approach is what is left.

Sorry this is tangental to the thread's focus but every time I see this 
particular argument trotted out I feel like it's overlooking the 
obvious; lack of sufficient forethought 10 years ago turns into 
significant piece of work today. A lesson? Yes, but hindsight is 20:20.

Mark.