Re: [v6ops] Vicious circle [ULA precedence [Thoughts about wider operational input]]

[Simon <[e-mail]>]

Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I also find it interesting that "keeping ipv4" is
> even a reasonable choice to entertain. Clearly IPv6 is the long term
> path forward, and it would behoove us to help with that simply from a
> protocol simplification perspective. IPv4 isn't "working for them"
> it's the standard they are evaluated against

Translation (as previously mentioned):
The IPv6 community needs to engage with this other regulatory community to get them to bring their standard into the 21st century.

As long as the PCI standard effectively mandates IPv4 & NAPT then it’s going to be an uphill struggle.


On a much smaller scale I’ve been on the receiving end of this with a previous work hat on. Unknown to us in the IT dept, we would get various audits - insurers, finance auditors, parent company, blah, blah. Often the first we’d know about it would be manglement coming to us and saying “we need to do X because auditors” - no matter whether X is a sensible thing to do or not, or even if the technology we were using at the time supported it. Not running Windows servers would often confuse them !

Unfortunately, we were rarely brought in at the right stage so we could have that discussion where the auditor needs to tick a box, and we could explain “we do it this way, for these reasons - and that supports the objective you are trying to tick a box for”.


Arguing that trying to change the PCI requirements will take a decade, therefore we should bother, is simply kicking the problem down the road. The sooner “someone” starts that conversation, the sooner that 10 years will come round. Leave starting that conversation for another year means it’ll be 11 years, and so on.
As the proverb says "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.

And I guess the “someone” needs to be a person (or group) who have feet in both camps (IPv6 and PCI).

Simon