Radu-Adrian, On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <[email protected]> wrote: > Unless you manage to bring in money by using IPv6 and *NOT* IPv4, it > remains either a "submarine project" or an explicit NO-GO.
In most businesses, there are two (non-exclusive) ways to get traction on doing pretty much anything: 1) it generates more revenue. 2) it reduces costs. It is and always has been a bit unlikely that IPv6 will ever generate more revenue -- the vast majority of customers do not and should not care about something as esoteric as the particular bit layouts at an intermediate layer of the network. As such, you're left with #2. Until relatively recently, it was difficult to make the case for #2, however one nice thing about markets is that they can provide explicit signals that help businesses decide. While there were free pools, the RIR system masked those signals, ironically making it harder for businesses to see the need to migrate to IPv6. We've mostly solved that problem, and the spot price for obtaining IPv4 addresses and/or the costs associated with CGN are now a direct and obvious cost network service providers will need to account for and (likely) pass on to their customers. My view is that forward-looking network service providers will likely try to reduce those costs by minimizing the use of IPv4 where possible, migrating their internal infrastructure to IPv6 and selling a native IPv6/CGN'd IPv4 solution by default, having non-CGN'd IPv4 as an extra cost option (at least for new customers and increasingly, old customers when their contracts renew). Now that most ISP network gear supports IPv6, the first part of that would make sense regardless of the regulatory environment. Regards, -drc (speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
