Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Tue, 5 Aug 2014 21:54:02 +0200 you wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 09:22:10PM +0200, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> The question is then, why not simply run on RFC-1918 addresses internally?
>
>Why have dual everything inside, when single IPv6 is sufficient to 
>achieve service delivery?  Dual everything is *dual* *work*, translating
>to real money out in the real world.

I think it is safe to say that providing good IPv4 service is the most
important requirement. In many cases, it is perfectly fine to not provide
any IPv6 if it cannot be provided at reasonable cost / performance.

So what recent proposals are doing to make providing IPv4 more complex under
the assumption that it is actually important to provide IPv6.

(note, looking at this from business point of view. Not as somebody who
care about the future of the internet).

So instead of doing a relatively straightforward NAT44 or NAT444 and then
let IPv6 pay for itself, you now make the cost of providing IPv6 part of the
cost of providing IPv4.

In essence, your IPv4 network now got more expensive. 

In some cases, mobile operators, very big cable ISPs that run out of RFC-1918,
it makes sense to translate or tunnel IPv4.

In other cases, this kind of complexity is likely to backfire some time in
future.