IPv6 deployment excuses

Mon Jul 4 08:01:24 UTC 2016

On 3/Jul/16 15:34, Tore Anderson wrote:

> We've found that it is. IPv6-only greatly reduces complexity compared to
> dual stack. This means higher reliability, lower OpEx, shorter recovery
> time when something does go wrong anyway, fewer SLA violations, happier
> customers, and so on - the list goes on and on. Single stack is
> essentially the KISS option.

What I was trying to get to is that, yes, running a single-stack is
cheaper (depending on what "cheaper" means to you) than running dual-stack.

That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage as
IPv6 is now where the world is going.

Similarly, running IPv6-only means you still need to support access to
the IPv4-only Internet anyway, if you want to have paying customers or
happy users.

So the bottom line is that for better or worse, any progressive network
in 2016 is going to have to run dual-stack in some form or other for the
foreseeable future. So the argument on whether it is cheaper or more
costly to run single- or dual-stack does not change that fact if you are
interested in remaining a going concern.

Mark.