IPv6 Ignorance

[rs at seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)]

Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> writes:

> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
> some of the posters is kind of shocking. 

There are actually a few good points mixed in there, like the guy who
observes that dual stacking is of limited utility if there are no v4
addresses to be had.

I keep performing this vendor monologue.  It goes something like:

   What do I mean when I say "it must support IPv6"?  I mean two things.
   First, full feature parity with IPv4.  Everything that works under
   IPv4 must work under IPv6.  If you have exceptions, you'd better
   document them and have a remediation plan (or work-around if it is a
   deficiency baked into the standard; there are a few of which I'm
   aware).  Second, the device must function perfectly in an IPv6-only
   environment, with not a hint of IPv4 addressing around.  Dual-stack
   capability is nice, but should be an easy thing to provide if you can
   handle the first two requirements.

Furious scribbling in the 'ol Moleskine invariably ensues.  I am not
sure what it is about this set of requirements (which seems so plain
to see that I felt as if I was belaboring the obvious the first time I
brought it up) that seems like a revelation to people in the vendor
space, but apparently it does.

Are *you* doing *your* part?  Taken your shoe off and banged it on the
conference room table Khrushchev-style lately?

-r