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

Thu Mar 13 19:13:35 UTC 2008

Randy,

> actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge.  there will never be
> demand for ipv6 from the end user.  they just want their mtv, and do  
> not
> care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.

I agree.  What I meant was that customers will demand content and  
since that content is available (largely exclusively) over IPv4, it  
will be difficult to make the business case to deploy IPv6.

> it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4
> squeeze and need to seek alternatives.  and, imiho, ipv6 is the
> preferable alternative we have today.

I can see a case being made for converting an ISP's network to IPv6- 
only with edges (both customer facing as well as core facing, the  
latter being the tricky bit) that take v4 packets and tunnel them  
across the v6 infrastructure since the ISP would then be unconstrained  
on infrastructure growth and be able to use all their existing v4  
holdings to connect customers.  This also provides those customers  
that are dual stacked (and who haven't turned off v6 because that's  
what the ISP/software vendor/etc. call center told them to do) native  
v6 connectivity.

However, more realistically, I fear we're more likely to see a world  
of multi-layer NAT because (a) the technology exists, (b) the ISP  
doesn't have to learn much (if anything) new, and (c) it fits nicely  
into a walled garden business model that permits the ISP to sell  
"value added" services (e.g., "a mere additional $5/month if you'd  
like port X forwarded.").

Blech.

Regards,
-drc