[184317] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Thu Oct 1 21:43:30 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <560DD5F7.6040503@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:38:22 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote:
>
>>
>> I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network.
>>
>> IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver.
>>
>
> Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use
> 464xlat instead of native dual-stack, as was originally envisioned for the
> transition?
>
>
Steady state would be nat44, which also is materially more expensive to
deliver than IPv6
>
>> And, as FB has shared, IPv6 is more performant for end users, and more
>> performant is more profitable
>>
>>
> Isn't that also at least partially a consequence of your engineering
> decision to use 464xlat?
>
>
Perhaps. But it is Verizon's dual-stack in the quote, not me
http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>
