Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

> My point in bringing this up is not that it is “useful in an IPv6 network” that might also be running IPv4 in parallel. It is that it seems useful to me in moving toward and IPv6-*only* network. Ross suggests that he sees conceptual movement - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win. We may, Ross suggests, be approaching stage 4. It may be useful for us as a working group to lay out the game plan for that movement - not just to document IPv6 operational practice, but to help the IETF determine whether the dual stack consensus has changed or is changing, and help operators figure out how to turn IPv4 off without individually shooting their toes off. This would be part of that game plan.

Well, I think the operators that moved early into genuine dual
stack operation have no reason to regret it. I'm a happy customer
of one such. On the other hand it seems that other operators are of
the opinion (probably unprovable) that providing the illusion of dual
stack service to the customer over an IPv6 infrastructure is cheaper.
In any case the customer ends up with NATted IPv4 service in most
cases, so at user level it doesn't really matter.

I think we should probably not express a preference either way. It
seems like a decision for each operator to make individually. What we
probably should do is stop inventing more solutions.

(In parenthesis, I've never seen sunsetting IPv4 as a real problem.
One day somebody will notice that there are no more IPv4 packets. But
that is many years in the future.)

    Brian