North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
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.
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.
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