North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Thu Mar 13 15:17:30 2008


actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.

I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and since that content is available (largely exclusively) over IPv4, it will be difficult to make the business case to deploy IPv6.

it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4
squeeze and need to seek alternatives.  and, imiho, ipv6 is the
preferable alternative we have today.

I can see a case being made for converting an ISP's network to IPv6- only with edges (both customer facing as well as core facing, the latter being the tricky bit) that take v4 packets and tunnel them across the v6 infrastructure since the ISP would then be unconstrained on infrastructure growth and be able to use all their existing v4 holdings to connect customers. This also provides those customers that are dual stacked (and who haven't turned off v6 because that's what the ISP/software vendor/etc. call center told them to do) native v6 connectivity.

However, more realistically, I fear we're more likely to see a world of multi-layer NAT because (a) the technology exists, (b) the ISP doesn't have to learn much (if anything) new, and (c) it fits nicely into a walled garden business model that permits the ISP to sell "value added" services (e.g., "a mere additional $5/month if you'd like port X forwarded.").