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

Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore.fi
Thu Mar 13 14:22:18 UTC 2008


On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
> 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.

If the customer would be v6-only, I agree.

If the customer is v4-only, I would posit that it's in most cases 
impossibleto get the customers upgraded to v6.  I would also argue 
(based on my understanding) that translating or tunneling v4-only 
clients over v6-only network would cause pretty much equal or greater 
complexities as dual-stack.

If the customer is dual-stack, I would agree that v6-only is simpler, 
but that gets back to the point of, "does the whole internet support 
v6 or is there alternative, reliable way to reach the rest?"  As a 
result you will need to deal with v4 connectivity issues as well.

NB: we have had dual-stack backbone for about 6 years and are not 
seeing major pain.  Sure, v6-only would be even easier in the longer 
term, but as far as I've seen, the major transition issues are at the 
edges, not in the core network.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings



More information about the NANOG mailing list