Re: [v6ops] Turning on IPv6 Routers

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Fred Baker wrote:
>> "If IPv4 router operation is enabled by default, enable IPv6 router
>> operation by default."
> 
> this is undoubtedly well-intentioned, and the idealist bit in me
> sympathises with the principal.  However with my enable hat on, a
> recommendation like this isn't going to fix any problem associated with
> ipv6 adoption.
> 
> The problems with ipv6 adoption revolve entirely around cost/benefit.

I disagree. 
IPv6 enablement by the ISP requires work. But once it's enabled, there's often a gap between "100% enabled" and "100% active" that is directly due to CPE either not supporting or not enabling IPv6. 

> Pressing problems still include things that should have been resolved
> years ago, e.g. vendors charging extra for ipv6 support (today's
> bugbear: provisioning system vendors, please note that charging extra
> for basic ipv6 functionality is destructive in the long term and
> corrosive for your customer relationships)

It's great that there are others to choose from. It's unfortunate that the marginal cost to buy and integrate is higher than the extra  fee for feature support. That recalcitrant vendor better hope you love them enough to stay. 

> 
> As a separate issue, from an operational point of view, implicit
> enabling of functionality in one area when it's explicitly enabled in
> another is something that needs to be handled carefully because
> otherwise you can end up violating the principal of least astonishment.

Once it's enabled at the edge, it seems more astonishing to me when it doesn't work than when it does. The vast majority of IPv6 tickets I've seen have been "Why don't I have it yet?"

> 
> Nick
> 

Lee

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 