Re: IPv6 deployment excuses

[Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>]

I disagree. Any data center or hosting provider is going to continue to offer IPv4 lest they island themselves from 
subscribers who have IPv4 only - which no data center is going to do. 

One can not run IPv6 only because there are sites that are only IPv4. 

Thus, as an ISP you can safely continue to run IPv4. Ipv4 won't be going away for at least ten years or more - if ever. 

I'm not saying don't be ready for IPv6. I'm not saying don't understand how it works. But doomsday isn't here. 

> On Jul 4, 2016, at 04:01, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/Jul/16 15:34, Tore Anderson wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage as
> IPv6 is now where the world is going.
>
> 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.
>
> Mark.