[ipv6-wg] IPv6 only network (not just at RIPE xx meeting)

> I guess this is one of the larger issues with running multiple protocols in parallel :)
> One solution as a content-provider would be to get the services to be v6-only, and then implement
> workarounds (for example stateless nat46, 4to6 loadbalancers) on the edge to get the service on to
> v4 Internet. Most people monitor v4 and if v4 depends on a working v6 its a lot easier to make sure
> issues are noticed and fixed in time.

This can work as long as the services are conducive to NAT46 or (preferably) SLB46.  Web services behind SLB46 work well for example, Facebook being an excellent example of this approach:
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/03/facebooks-extremely-impressive-internal-use-of-ipv6/

--Jim


---- Geert Jan de Groot skrev ----


Hi all,

Not attending RIPE-meetings myself anymore these days, 
I'm not sure whether (just) a IPv6-only network at a meeting
is going to cut it. This has been done for a number of years worth
of meetings and while the results are interesting, I'm not sure that
a RIPE-meeting is a requirement to run these experiments.
It makes perfect sense to run a V6-only network at home/office and
get the experience all year, not just during a meeting.

So, as a typical home user these days, I run a V6-network, 
some pieces of it being V6-only, other places being V6-preferred,
and the experiences are, eumm, mixed.

I frequently find sites (at various ISP's) that are either partially
or fully broken for V6. In many instances, happy eyeballs rescues things,
that is, things seem just slow but not entirely broken unless one analyzes.

Reporting a V6-broken website to it's hoster is, in many cases,
a waiste of time. Helpdesks don't understand the problem.
If I'm lucky I get a response. Problems are seldom resolved.
I think I see this five times per month or so. Perhaps I should browse less.

Thing is, we seem to be working on making the Internet V6-capable,
but currently V6 performance and stability is a serious issue, especially
when it comes to reporting problems. Happy eyeballs mean that
the V6-network can, in many cases, just be switched off without 
anybody noticing. We all know of stories of support/helpdesk folk
telling people just to switch off V6.
That's all nice if it'd just be an academic exercise but not if it
is supposed to be the main bread and butter in the years to come.

So, my question to the WG: does the WG think this is a problem, and 
can we think of a way to get clueful v6 complaints to clueful handlers,
instead of being ignored / misaddressed / ...?

Geert Jan