Dude.
The difficulty of setting IPv6 up at your house vs. the needs of a multi-homed, geographically diverse enterprise couldn't be more dissimilar.
I'd lay off the judgment a bit.
The difficulty of setting IPv6 up at your house vs. the needs of a multi-homed, geographically diverse enterprise couldn't be more dissimilar.
I'd lay off the judgment a bit.
BTW a homelab often tries to imitate more complex setups, in order to be a learning experience. Can these difficulties be modelled there?
all of it ipv4 based. ipv6 maybe in distant future somewhere on the edge in case our clients will demand in.
inside our network - probably not going to happen
Public-interfacing parts can (and should) support IPv6, but I don't see much trouble exposing your public HTTP servers (and maybe mail servers) using IPv6, because most likely your hosting / cloud providers do 99.9% of it already, out of the box (unless it's AWS, haha), and the rare remaining cases, like, I don't know, a custom VPN gateway, are not such a big deal to handle.
amount of work to support ipv6 on the edge will be very big and none of our clients asked for it as far as i know.
the only time we discussed it, it's when we were getting fedramp certification. because of this https://www.gsa.gov/directives-library/internet-protocol-ver...
This is neither hard nor expensive.
Mind you, our team discussed this numerous times over a few years and never came up with a solution that didn't look like it would require us to completely fork-lift what we were doing. The whole team was FOR getting us to v6, so there was no dogmatic opposition.
Consider this:
25k employee company. Four main datacenter hubs spread out across the USA with 200 remote offices evenly dual-homed into any two of the four.
All four of the DCs had multi-ISP Internet access advertising their separate v4 blocks and hosting Internet services. The default-route was redistributed into the IGP from only two locations, site A and B. e.g. two of the four DCs were egress for Internet traffic from the population of users and all non-internet-facing servers. IGP metrics were gently massaged as to fairly equally use of both sites.
All outbound traffic flowed naturally out of the eastern or western sites based on IGP metrics. This afforded us a tertiary failover for outbound traffic in the event that both of the Internet links into one of the two egress sites was down. e.g., if both of site A's links (say, level-3 and att) were down, the route through site A was lost, and all the egress traffic was then routed out site B (and vice-versa). This worked well with ipv4 because we used NAT to masquerade all the internal v4 space as site X's public egress block. Therefore all the return traffic was routed appropriately.
BGP advertisements were either as-path prepended or supernetted (don't remember which) such that if site A went down, site B, C, or D would get its traffic, and tunnel it via GRE to the appropriate DC hub's external segment.
The difficulty was that traffic absolutely had to flow symmetrically because of the firewalls in place, and easily could for v4 because NAT was happening at every edge.
With v6 it just didn't seem like there was any way to achieve the same routing architecture / flexibility, particularly with multi-homing into geographically disparate sites.
I'm not sure anymore where we landed, but I remember it being effectively insurmountable. I don't think it was difficult for Internet-hosted services, but the effort seemed absolutely not worth it for everything on the inside of the network.