[190417] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Mon Jul 4 05:21:45 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 11:21:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20160704110442.055a4284@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 4/Jul/16 11:04, Tore Anderson wrote:
> My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked
> façade. 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.)
The NAT64 translation still requires a dual-stack deployment. Of course,
it is a smaller % of your overall single-stack IPv6 network, but still
there nonetheless.
The advantage with NAT64, as you say, is that it easier to rip it out
when the IPv4 Internet dies a happy death, than it would be if one were
keeping IPv4 primary and sticking IPv6 duct tape on top.
Mark.
