Who has any kind of hands-on experience with IPv6?Taskforce initiated from the tech-lead group. Creating awareness, preparing for the future, coming to a transition strategy. Deliverables: white paper, awareness session(s), SBP infra transition.V6 World learned: high energy, world players, taskforce, strategy & implementation plan, scenarios, test before try.
Not a migration! Technology push industry vs. adoption by Internet community. Seamless transition is critical success factor.
Changing waste paradigm.
Because the headers of IPv4 packets and IPv6 packets are significantly different, the two protocols are not interoperable. However, in most respects, IPv6 is a conservative extension of IPv4. Most transport and application-layer protocols need little or no change to operate over IPv6; exceptions are application protocols that embed internet-layer addresses, such as FTP and NTPv3.The packet header in IPv6 is simpler than that used in IPv4, with many rarely used fields moved to separate optional header extensions.IPv6 routers do not perform fragmentation. IPv6 hosts are required to either perform path MTU discovery, perform end-to-end fragmentation, or to send packets no larger than the IPv6 default minimum MTU size of 1280 octets.The IPv6 header is not protected by a checksum; integrity protection is assumed to be assured by both link-layer and higher-layer (TCP, UDP, etc.) error detection. UDP/IPv4 may actually have a checksum of 0, indicating no checksum; IPv6 requires UDP to have its own checksum. Therefore, IPv6 routers do not need to recompute a checksum when header fields (such as the time to live (TTL) or hop count) change. This improvement may have been made less necessary by the development of routers that perform checksum computation at link speed using dedicated hardware, but it is still relevant for software-based routers.The TTL field of IPv4 has been renamed to Hop Limit, reflecting the fact that routers are no longer expected to compute the time a packet has spent in a queue.
the Experimental Streaming Protocol Version 2 (ST2, see RFC1819) had already been assigned to itProtocol number assignment by IANA Internet Assigned Numbers AuthorityV4 Not interoperable with v6Legacy v4
decision making, marketing, development or engineering. All these stake holders must become aware of what IPv6 will mean for their business, their services, their interoperability with the mission critical platform, and their operationsPoC and implementation plan, test/dev roll forward to ACC/PRODVendor interpretation of standards; beat the last 15%
Per connection decide on strategy and implementationBusiness case per connection
Communication via interpreter (tolk) results in loss of context
Actively disabling of IPv6 stack not always possible. Means spending time and energy in not introducing unknownsIsolation
Transparancy, Scalability and performance of the NAT device
Highly theoretical. Only green field. Challenge with v6 only application stack
To be defined by customer team in preparation to discussion with customer
4 to 6: It is time, a presentation about IPv6 in Mission Critical Environments