Hi Sabahttin, > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Sabahattin Gucukoglu > Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 6:25 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz > > IPv6 networking: Bad news for small biz > ### You may not get fired for buying Cisco, but you can go bust > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/31/ipv6_sucks_for_smes/ > > From the comments the author opines (among other things): > <quote> > The article exists for one reason: to let the high priests of the internet > know "oh, BTW, that NPT66 thing that? It's in products and in use in SME shops > all over the damned place already." In other words: the utter failure of the > priesthood to engage care for the issues faced by SME outfits resulted in them > (shockingly!) going out and choosing the cheap and simple alternative that > actually already existed! Note the two key words: "cheap" and "simple." > </quote> > > That's us he's talking about. It seemed only fair to share that perspective, > since I don't see any other mention of the article here. Needless to say, I > really can't speak in polite terms of some of the shortsightedness > demonstrated. > > But of course, I'm always delighted to hear your opinions. Is renumbering > *really* that big of a deal? I suppose multihoming is the bigger, more > serious concern - that's the one we see no viable solution but NAT for, given > small site constraints and aggregation. And yet, here we are, on our way to > flipping the big switch, and nobody seems to be in much of a panic. I do not > operate on sites large enough, or disaster-resistant enough, to know one way > or the other how big of an issue this really is. My gut feeling is that this > article is not the whole story and that the author has worked up a good > whinge. But I do think the belligerent attitude in this article says we won't > be long finding out just how far a NAT-free existence will get us. Especially > true given how much blame we get for "Not thinking it through properly" or, > worse, directly compared with OSI protocols with all those fancy network path > discovery features that we felt we didn't need, application-layer DNS kludges > for failover, etc, that would have remediated these problems if the naysayers > are to be believed. No doubt there's work to be done. I see already the > progress made in v6ops of IPv6 multihoming without NAT. Cool. And, of > course, there's HomeNet for putting the title of this article into question. Of course, The Register does have a reputation of being an IT tabloid, but ... Renumbering in small organizations _is_ a big deal, especially when they don't have in-house skills to manage systems. They may not even have the skills to determine that something deployed in their network has failed renumbering, or is left behind due to static configuration. I was at "Cisco Live" a week or so ago, and the Cisco advisor stated that people should use PA Global addressing and not even look at ULA (even for internal resources). With approaches like that, renumbering will be a significant pain, or people will just not change ISP. What we need is simple, template guidance for SMEs that can be deployed to reduce the risk of future costs in IPv6 deployment, and minimizes the cost of operating and troubleshooting networks in the mean time. Sincerely, Greg Daley