Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Bjørn Mork <bjorn () mork no>]

Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> writes:

> I absolutely HATE testing, developing and supporting IPv4+IPv6, more
> than doubling my time, adding 3rd stack would actually not increase
> cost that much, it's the 1=>2 which is fantastically expensive. And
> costs are transferred to customers.

+1

> Those who have not done _anything_ with IPv6, have done the right
> thing from business POV, they've had lowest cost, least issues and
> have had other people pay for the improvements of the stack. And even
> today, I see no business sense deploying IPv6.

The state is not static.  The difference is there for any (partially)
new deployment.

Adding new access infrastructure of any sort (Fixed Wireless is the
hype...)?  Why would you want to continue being stupid even if you
implemented dual-stack for all your fibre, hfc and dsl customers?  You
can save a lot by dropping dual-stack complexities in PGWs and FWA CPEs,
even if we assume most of the fibre/hfc/dsl value chain is reused.



Bjørn