[103016] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Thu Mar 13 10:24:01 2008
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:22:18 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20080313140611.GC4079@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
> I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra
> recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
> customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology
> costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recurring' part is the
> real killer.
If the customer would be v6-only, I agree.
If the customer is v4-only, I would posit that it's in most cases
impossibleto get the customers upgraded to v6. I would also argue
(based on my understanding) that translating or tunneling v4-only
clients over v6-only network would cause pretty much equal or greater
complexities as dual-stack.
If the customer is dual-stack, I would agree that v6-only is simpler,
but that gets back to the point of, "does the whole internet support
v6 or is there alternative, reliable way to reach the rest?" As a
result you will need to deal with v4 connectivity issues as well.
NB: we have had dual-stack backbone for about 6 years and are not
seeing major pain. Sure, v6-only would be even easier in the longer
term, but as far as I've seen, the major transition issues are at the
edges, not in the core network.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
