[190408] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sun Jul 3 06:15:29 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Ruairi Carroll <ruairi.carroll@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:15:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CANdN9jaxP_i22-TtRv1=Brj8pysBpqVyZdDp_PE4gnHW34QN9g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 3/Jul/16 12:01, Ruairi Carroll wrote:
>
> Core of the issue is that we _need_ to get an ICMP message back to the
> original "real server" who sent it. It's a non-issue in the SP space,
> but imagine if your ECMP groups were stateful in both directions...
Okay.
> =20
>
> Think about it in layers, with each little piece adding up to the
> overall cost:
I understand your points - to your comment, my question is around
whether it is cheaper (for you) to just run IPv6 in lieu of IPv6 and IPv4=
=2E
Mark.
