[190416] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tore Anderson)
Mon Jul 4 05:04:49 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 11:04:42 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
In-Reply-To: <5d01aa51-4402-3a73-a006-30e23351f24b@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
> What I was trying to get to is that, yes, running a single-stack is
> cheaper (depending on what "cheaper" means to you) than running
> dual-stack.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
> That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage
> as IPv6 is now where the world is going.
Also wholeheartedly agreed.
> Similarly, running IPv6-only means you still need to support access to
> the IPv4-only Internet anyway, if you want to have paying customers or
> happy users.
>=20
> So the bottom line is that for better or worse, any progressive
> network in 2016 is going to have to run dual-stack in some form or
> other for the foreseeable future. So the argument on whether it is
> cheaper or more costly to run single- or dual-stack does not change
> that fact if you are interested in remaining a going concern.
My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked
fa=C3=A7ade. That can easily be achieved using, e.g., protocol translation
at the outer border of my network.
The inside of my network, where 99.99% of all the complexity, devices,
applications and so on reside, can be single stack IPv6-only today.
Thus I get all the benefits of running a single stack network, minus a
some fraction of a percent needed to operate the translation system.
(I could in theory get rid of that too by outsourcing it somewhere.)
Tore
