Re: [v6ops] IPv6-only section [draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 WGLC]

[Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>]

On 8/8/13 1:40 PM, Ray Hunter wrote:
<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>
> Actually I think your reasoning and reference to the IPX and Appletalk
> phase out would suggest it's easier to make a bold call: move to IPv6
> ASAP for critical systems via dual stack, and for the rest you draw a
> box around it and call it legacy and run it on IPv4 until it dies a
> natural death.
> 
> IMHO Going half way with NAT64/DNS64 just prolongs the pain and locks
> you into a transition technology that is expensive and difficult to
> operate for the life cycle of that box, and which has to remain in place
> until the last app is migrated or switched off.
> 
> I've been in a fair number projects where you sometimes just have to
> dare to cut the cord whilst maintaining a process to find out what has
> broken. So one valid IPv6 only migration strategy might be: "If it's
> important, they'll migrate before a flag day date. Otherwise they get
> cut off."

I cannot agree enough with the "prolongs the pain" observation.

I'm planning to have no transition technologies in our internal (corporate) network. "Dual-stack or death!"

If something can't be dual-stacked, it goes into the legacy pit of doom and dies a slow painful death.

Consumer-facing is different, but I'm still expecting no transition technologies to be needed.

This is rather cold-blooded and (I freely admit) a bit of a pipe dream. But if I can make this work, I'll never have to
justify, pay for, create, debug, support, and then decommission any of the transition technologies.