Re: [v6ops] Time to dump dual-stack networks and get on the IPv6 train - with LW4o6

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

> On 2 Jul 2018, at 07:28, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:53 PM, George Michaelson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I know its "wrong" but I sympathise with a tech journalist seeking
>> clarity in this. The edge user situation is very hard to distinguish
>> in both cases, the user functionally can see both Ipv4 and Ipv6
>> resources. How is this not "dual" in the sense a man or woman in the
>> street would understand it?
> 
> Of course. From the perspective of a residential - or enterprise - user, they have both IPv4 and IPv6, and the network is carrying them. So from their perspective they retain dual stack capabilities in the near term. However, here's another factoid.
> 
> For the residential user, the number of services that actually require IPv4 is relatively small. I mentioned home security as a market that required the ability to make an IPv4 connection to the home. Suppose that could be changed? One way to change that would be for a few large ISPs to convince companies like LINK or ADT to become IPv6-capable, whereupon it becomes a market requirement for their competitors.

Sadly I don't see my TV upgrading itself to IPv6 any time soon; that will happen when I buy a new TV, in maybe 10 years time.  Streamed iPlayer and other video content to that TV is more than half of my home network traffic.

As for charging more, how would a customer know what devices support IPv4 and/or IPv6, or need IPv4?  Why should they care?  "We're charging you an extra $5/mo because you have v4 traffic" isn't helpful. 

> The ISP has just made having IPv4 at all a second priority for them; it's in their interest to move residential/soho/enterprise to IPv6, with the goal of removing the final translation step. I would expect their next move to be to charge for the service, and if possible move it to the edge itself  - which is where draft-*-v6ops-nat64-deployment is going. The transition rolls out from there.
> 
> The more outfits that find it in their interest to be able to operate without IPv4 at all, the better this is for all of us. And this becomes an important step in the general transition.

I agree with the rest of what you say, but in a home network situation, there's going to be a lot of legacy IPv4 traffic externally, just look at https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05368 for example.

Tim