Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

[Ruairi Carroll <ruairi.carroll () gmail com>]

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.