Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

[Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>]

* 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.
>
> 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
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.)

Tore