On 11/26/21 16:16, Jose Luis Rodriguez wrote:
Well … YMMV. We’ve been running v6 for years, and it didn’t really make a dent in spend or boxes or rate of v4 depletion. Big part of the problem in our neck of the woods is millions of v4-only terminals … as well as large customer/gov bids requiring tons of v4 address space.
I can very easily see why "IPv6 saves you on CG-NAT capex might not be entirely true" in cases such as these.
On paper, it all adds up. Mark.
