Re: [v6ops] Thoughts about wider operational input

[hsyu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think it is necessary to promote the migration of ipv4 to ipv6 from the aspects of persuading the decision makers of the enterprise and providing training, as follows:
1. More communication with decision makers. Inform decision makers that the migration from IPv4 to IPv6 can be disruptive, and if not prepared early, there will be many uncertain hidden dangers later. From the perspective of revenue, after migrating to IPv6, many ipv4 address assets can be released and realized, and these IPv4 address assets will gradually depreciate in the long run. The decision maker is the manager, and his thinking angle is different from that of the technical staff. The benefits and costs are the issues that the decision maker is more concerned about.
2. Cost considerations. Costs include monetary assets, but also people and time. By choosing to form an IPv6 committee or working group and consulting with other business leaders, establish an IPv6 migration plan and integrate it with other businesses, such as PC replacement, application upgrade deployment or data center update. These are all conducive to the reduction of migration costs.
3. Reduce complexity. To ensure nothing is missed, a plan must be developed that will detail the timeline, groups of devices to be migrated, priorities, and more. To reduce complexity, you can do this by scheduling migrations by group, device, time, or whatever works best for you.
4. Active training. Through active training, the technical threshold for people to use IPv6 is lowered, not only for IPv6 operation and maintenance managers, but also for ordinary office workers. Although the use of IPv6 is similar to IPv4, there are still many differences. For example, when the browser enters the IPv6 address to access the URL, you need to add square brackets around the IPv6 address, and the IPv6 loopback address is ::1 instead of 127.0.0.1.  Although these places are very small, they really affect people's use of IPv6.

https://maas.mail.163.com/dashi-web-extend/html/proSignature.html?ftlId=1&name=Haisheng+Yu%28Johnson%29&uid=hsyu%40cfiec.net&iconUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fmail-online.nosdn.127.net%2Fsm50a1433bca9fb284d4265d35e9ed54d3.jpg&items=%5B%22%22%2C%22hsyu%40cfiec.net%22%2C%22%22%2C%22%22%2C%22%22%5D" rel="nofollow">

https://mail-online.nosdn.127.net/sm50a1433bca9fb284d4265d35e9ed54d3.jpg">	Haisheng Yu(Johnson)
[e-mail]

On 3/23/2022 13:57，Gert Doering<[e-mail]> wrote：

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:40:25PM -0400, Gyan Mishra wrote:

How do you justify if everything works fine and if it???s not broken why fix
it mantra.  That goes for even companies in the IT business.

Real Enterprise Networks are never "everything works fine", but usually
a horrible mess of internal NAT44, sometimes multiple layers.

I've been told by one enterprise customer that it sometimes takes them
2 weeks to troubleshoot "host A cannot reach host B" problems, because
of "nobody knows which addresses host A and host B should have, in network
parts X, Y and Z, so it needs 5 different teams to debug this".

What is still missing is the understanding "the mess of grown bandaid-NAT
goes away with IPv6".

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops