[190409] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ruairi Carroll)
Sun Jul 3 06:27:13 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1eebdf61-b0e2-c0f7-9e81-9f00a7a218ae@seacom.mu>
From: Ruairi Carroll <ruairi.carroll@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:27:08 +0200
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 3 July 2016 at 12:15, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
Probably equal cost (ha ha) to pick one or the other. However since this
conversation was started about people using excuses to not deploy....and
being a stub/content provider, your main goal is reachability, to which v4
is still king.
So you have your hand forced to pick v4 for now.
/Ruairi
> Mark.
>
