4 ms·
How good are IPv6 implementations nowadays? A few years ago there were quite a few bugs in them, no?
by alricb 11y ago
How good are IPv6 implementations nowadays? A few years ago there were quite a few bugs in them, no?
- stephen_g 11y agoIP stacks have been fine for many years. There was some problems years back where some ISP's networks would have really crap internal IPv6 connectivity, so IPv4 routes had much lower latency than IPv6 - but that was mainly bad network design and operation. All major operating systems have what's called 'happy eyeballs' algorithms to pick the best path for each connection. Apple updated theirs last year and reported that with most networks they tried, IPv6 was selected as the preferred option ~99% of the time it was available[1]. 1. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22455.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg22455...
- stock_toaster 11y agoApparently many vendors do not yet support RFC 6724, or support it poorly with regard to ULA addresses. As such, I get mixed results with devices that have both a ULA and a global address, with the device trying to use the ULA address (instead of the global address) for global network egress.
- scurvy 11y agoThere are still bugs in network vendor hardware. That said, you shouldn't let that stop you from deploying IPv6[0]. It's mainly little things like you can't address a serial link as /127 (Hello HP). You should allocate a /64, but address it /127. There's a major bug on A10 load balancers where the ICMP "too big" message is ignored for virtual servers. There is currently no fix. If you run A10, you can't run IPv6. [0] Unless you run A10 gear.