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

Thu Mar 13 14:06:11 UTC 2008

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
> >Running dual stack increases cost.  While I'm not sure about the 5
> >year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon
> >as the market will let them as a cost saving measure.  Runing for
> >"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for
> >all involved.
> 
> So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is 
> higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding 
> edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future 
> customers still wedded to the older IP protocol?

I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario.  The 'recurring' part is the
real killer.

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil?	 https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20080313/c0571263/attachment.sig>