[103012] in North American Network Operators' Group
cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Thu Mar 13 09:28:03 2008
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:26:48 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20080312203824.GA12580@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
>> Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
>> be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
>> heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with
>> some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that
>> we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come.
>
> ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
> Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
> year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon
> as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for
> "decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for
> all involved.
So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is
higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding
edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future
customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
