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

Thu Mar 13 15:18:16 UTC 2008

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
>   money off IPv4.  We're already well into this state.
>
> 2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
>   other transition mechanisms in place.

Who has the other transition mechanisms in place?  What is the cost of 
deploying those transition mechanisms?  At present it's not obvious 
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are 
profitable.

> 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6.
>
> Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two,
> making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter
> than it is to run dual stack down the road.  On that point, I agree.

That's not all.  I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), 
you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy 
transition mechanisms which have substantial cost.  A transition 
mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3).

My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) 
-> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. 
Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward.

> My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look
> around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4".

I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get 
to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step.  In order to move to 
stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition 
mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be 
deployed which has significant cost involved.

I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working 
transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything 
would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for 
the reasons you say.

We've been a decade in step 1).  We'll likely continue to be another 
decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition 
technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and 
someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). 
Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an 
order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2).

> The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that
> is in phase 2, for "decades".  I proport there are strong economic
> reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case.

I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade 
more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% 
penetration).

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