[c-nsp] IPv6

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18:02PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:55 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > The gain/cost really depends on what your business is.
> 
> We the "Central Region Denmark", one of the five regional governments in
> Denmark. About 90% of our "business" is health services. We only service
> internal customers. This translates to having almost no direct
> economical motivation for adopting IPv6. :-(

Oh, to the contrary.  I just came off the phone with a customer who
is in the health industry - and he told me that they are having so many
address collisions with their IPv4 VPN partners that they will now install
a NAT-based scheme for their VPNs, and will have to change all their
VPNs to adjust for that.

If I compare that to a potential IPv6 VPN based on ULAs and globally unique
addresses in each location, that would save LOTS of costs here.


Right the next minute, I had to troubleshoot another customer, also from
the health industry, who couldn't reach a server.  I setup the router, 
non-reachability is a network issue, so it's all my fault.  Well, in the
end the server's netmask was wrong, so it assumed the client to be
on-link, and didn't send the packets to the gateway...

With IPv6, every LAN is a /64, and there's lots less possible mishaps
due to mis-typed netmasks...


To be honest, of course there will be problems caused by IPv6, and there
WILL be costs due to buggy and broken IPv6 implementations - but in the
long run, even "local and not connected to the world" networks can save
lots of money by getting rid of IPv4.


[..]
> Maybe if IPv6-only services started appearing, but then again: Almost
> all of our network activity is strictly local.

It should be pointed out that Windows Server 2008R2 and Windows 7 will
function much better if IPv6 is turned on, because all their windows RPC
stuff is now based on IPv6... 

So you'll end up having to cope with IPv6 as soon as you do Vista, Win7
or Server 2008R2.

> I might sound overly pessimistic, but that's probably because I am. :-)

I sound like I'm preaching.  Which is probably because I am :-)

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20100317/f3754962/attachment-0001.bin>