IPv6 woes - RFC

Mon Sep 6 13:07:04 UTC 2021

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> writes:

> It is simple, most of your traffic will use IPv6. Depending on your
> network/customer base 65-85%.
>
> You need less and less IPv4 addresses in the NAT64, less NAT64 boxes.
>
> Less resources to operate IPv6-only vs dual-stack.
>
> And because the IPv6 traffic is going up more and more with the time,
> you can keep reducing IPv4 addresses and NAT64 boxes. If you are using
> boxes that can be used for other functionalities, you even "recover"
> part of you initial investment.

You're assuming that IPv6 is required.  There is no reason do do that in
the current Internet.  IPv6 is still optional. The number of users who
care about IPv6 access is very close to 0 and dropping.

And as demonstrated in this thread: Even the few who still do care are
not willing to pay extra, or sacrifice anything, for IPv6.  They will
run off to your competitor as soon as they discover the price is lower
there. Which it will be since they saved a lot by building and running
an IPv4 only access network.

Bjørn