Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail].C
O.UK>, "Heatley, Nick" writes:
> If I may stick my neck out.
> 
> Id like v6ops to consider at least two items:
> 
> 1.       (Carrier Grade) NAT64 vs NAT44  a deathmatch.

	Most of the problem with NAT64 vs NAT44 is getting CPE
	devices upgraded.  464xlate worked for cellular networks
	because the devices were replaced to support 4G services
	and those new devices support 464xlate.  Additionally cell
	phones are fragile devices that get stolen, lost, dropped,
	stepped on, driven over, and is some market need to be
	replaced to change carrier ... so there is a high turnover.

	For wired connections there is no incentive for the customer
	to replace the CPE device so NAT44 is a required part of
	the solution space just to share the limited IPv4 address
	space between the IPv4 only customers.  Cable and DSL modems
	work for 10+ years.  Home routers work for similar lengths
	of time.  You can still buy IPv4 only routers and they are
	cheaper than anything with IPv6 in it.  If you are on a
	limited budget a IPv4 only router with 802.11g "will do".

	Add to that ISP's not offering / promoting IPv6 there is
	no incentive for the customer to buy the IPv6 capable device
	over the IPv4 only one.  The choice of device is made on
	other factors.  If ISPs offered to do 2G of IPv6 data for
	the price of 1G of IPv4 data one might actually get customers
	to buy IPv6 capable routers.  A 12 month rebate for installing
	a IPv6 capable CPE device could offset the costs of installing
	more CGNAT boxes.  IPv6 capable 802.11n routers can be got
	for AUD80 today.  Even on a AUD$20 plan the rebates would
	cover the costs if the usual +50% taffic shift to IPv6
	occurs.

	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]