[190421] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Hoppes)
Mon Jul 4 08:44:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>
In-Reply-To: <5d01aa51-4402-3a73-a006-30e23351f24b@seacom.mu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 08:44:10 -0400
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue to offe=
r IPv4 lest they island themselves from subscribers who have IPv4 only - whi=
ch no data center is going to do.=20
One can not run IPv6 only because there are sites that are only IPv4.=20
Thus, as an ISP you can safely continue to run IPv4. Ipv4 won't be going awa=
y for at least ten years or more - if ever.=20
I'm not saying don't be ready for IPv6. I'm not saying don't understand how i=
t works. But doomsday isn't here.=20
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 04:01, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On 3/Jul/16 15:34, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>=20
>> We've found that it is. IPv6-only greatly reduces complexity compared to
>> dual stack. This means higher reliability, lower OpEx, shorter recovery
>> time when something does go wrong anyway, fewer SLA violations, happier
>> customers, and so on - the list goes on and on. Single stack is
>> essentially the KISS option.
>=20
> 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=
.
>=20
> That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage as
> IPv6 is now where the world is going.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Mark.
