@craigj2k11 wrote:Of course there is enough space, how do you think you are accessing the internet at this very moment
There isn't. My ISP doesn't have enough IP space to even give everybody a second IP, let alone enough of them. I, like everybody else, am working around it with NAT, but that has a couple of problems such as... well, the laundry list I gave in my post above.
@craigj2k11 wrote:But if you want to write a letter to my boss as to why he should spend ~£650k adopting IPv6 then be my guest, it was an issue brought up in a meeting a while back, and I couldnt justify why we would need IPv6.
How much will it cost to not adopt v6? e.g. how much money do you pay to struggle with NAT each year? The more v6 you use, the fewer headaches you'll get from v4.
And at some point in the future, you're going to discover that you do need IPv6. Maybe one of the companies you do business with will require it, or whatever. Then you're going to need to learn everything you need to know, and plan and deploy it, in a time-critical rush. It'll be cheaper to do a slower, carefully-planned rollout ahead of time, before it becomes urgent.
Saving money now in exchange for spending more money later is not always a great way to save money.
@craigj2k11 wrote:but if it was that much of a major issue why not just load balance between the 2 DNS servers using the same external IP?
...because I wanted the servers to actually work? Having the packets go to the wrong server half the time would break both of them.
@VMCopperUser wrote:No, that's not a cringing reply..
Saying you need to wait for the company to be exausted of IPv4 before using IPv6 is (and your not the only VM Bod to say it)..
[...] While the talk about not doing it makes me upset, non-logical reasoning for not doing it makes me cringe.
Yes, very much this. You can claim that you have enough IPs to give 1 to every customer, and that's indeed true, but a) most of your customers will need to use NAT, which has a big list of problems that I've already given in this thread and is thus preferably avoided, and b) the v4 is useless for reaching other people's v6 sites/services. We keep seeing forum reps claim that "we have enough v4 so we don't need v6 yet", but that's wrong. Worse, from where I'm looking, the entire of VM seems to share that stance, and it worries me.
@VMCopperUser wrote:Perhaps I am just waiting for an answer that will placate me, something like "we are rolling it out on all of our gear, but waiting on end user deployment" or "we have it ready now but are spending time training staff and troubleshooting issues that can happen"
Or just any movement at all. They got 2a02:8800::/24 almost two years ago, but the block is not even announced yet (meaning VM have no v6 peers and can't send/receive any traffic from the block -- basically they got it and then forgot about it). Getting that block announced and a 6rd server up for initial testing and experience would be great, and wouldn't require a massive country-wide rollout, or even much planning, to do.