Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>And how are those eyeball networks going to enter the market, given that
>they don't provide access to IPv4 content but their competitors do? Seems
>that they can only do that if pretty much all content is available over
>IPv6. That leaves us stuck at the chicken and egg problem again.

If your core business is IPv4, then in my opinion it doesn't make much 
sense to transition to a network setup where you tunnel your IPv4 traffic
over IPv6. 

As long as an eyeball network has plenty of IPv4 address and there is no
pressure from content providers, there is no point in transitioning to IPv6.

Moving bulk traffic (and bulk connections) to IPv6 make sense if all IPv4
traffic goes through a CGN. 

If an ISP has a full IPv6 setup to handle large volume traffic, and only has
to maintain an IPv4 CGN for content that doesn't want to move to IPv4, then
it is possible that slowly IPv4 performance will get worse. And then content
providers may see an incentive to move to IPv6. For some content providers,
accidentally kiling geolocation in order to improve CGN efficiency may
give them the nudge they need.

In the end, the only argument that seems to make economic sense is that
an IPv4 address is more expensive than an IPv6 address. And that traffic
through a CGN is more expensive than through a router.