Re: [v6ops] The meaning of "IPv6-only" -- Re: sense of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

I think the point is not if we will keep having 1 or 10 or 30% of IPv4 traffic and how much time.

The relevance is that you can keep offering IPv4 as a Service in such way that the opex for the ISP is marginal or even neglectable (IPv4 peering/transit and routing tables, few IPv4 addresses in the edge of the NAT64 which, as said by Mark can be even outsourced). And then you don't care at all about "how" much IPv4 the customers use.

I recall the history of Telefonica when they wanted to stop offering the service of "old" rotary dial phones. The number of customers was very low compared to the cost of keeping it, that they decided to cancel the contracts. Same as now they are trying to cancel the phone booths.

At some point, more and more ISPs will tell customers: If you want to keep using IPv4, we offer you IPv6-only with IPv4aaS and may be this is an outsourced service so it will take "x" extra ms. End of history. Having IPv4aaS, it doesn't matter if you want to do this when you only have 30% or just 1% of IPv4 traffic: you have the control of the decision, not the amount of traffic.

For some ISPs (those with mainly have cellular or residential customers), this will happen much sooner.

With dual-stack, that's not possible and that means that you are investing in "multiple" transitions to IPv6, or postponing the inevitable final one (which means more opex during more time).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 31/3/21 3:13, "v6ops en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" <[e-mail] en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:

    On 31-Mar-21 12:07, Fred Baker wrote:
    > 
    >> An "IPv6-only host" seems quite unambiguous to me, as does "IPv6-only CPE". An "IPv6-only ISP" seems like a recipe for bankruptcy, however: the only question for an ISP is *how* to provide dual stack service, surely?
    > 
    > Didn’t the speaker from Reliance JIO say, at IETF 109, that most of their services were in fact IPv6-only? The only reason they had for implementing IPv4 at all was certain services that they marketed to enterprises, which appear to be composed of Luddites.
    > 
    > I guess that part of the question is whether the phrase “IPv6-only ISP” says what the ISP implements, or whether it says how they communicate  with neighboring IPv6-incapable networks. I might describe T-Mobile as IPv6-only in the sense that they only implement or manage IPv6; they run 464XLAT (which is to say, translation) when a neighboring ISP is IPv6-incapable, but that is invariably in another network. An IPv6-incapable device in a T-Mobile network is about as communicative as a rock.
    > 
    > No, I don’t think dual stack is the end of the road. It is where we are at the moment.

    I think this conversation shows that we're *only* talking about terminology. I don't care *how* an ISP connects retail customers to IPv4-only services, or *how* it connects IPv4-only enterprise customers to their users. But it will do so, unless it wants to leave a lot of money on the table.

    Believe me, I'd love to see IPv4 down to 1% of total traffic, but I doubt that I will live long enough. Meanwhile, I don't expect AF_INET to vanish from the socket API.

       Brian

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.