[ipv6hackers] "Stick to limited IPv6 deployments, businesses warned"
jim.small at cdw.com
Thu Sep 6 05:46:05 CEST 2012
> > 10) Slide 38 - Implied message is no business case for IPv6. I think this is
> leaving out some important details. Since this is a very technical list I will get
> to the point - we have < 141 million IPv4 addresses left at a burn rate of
> around 200 million IPv4 addresses/year. Everyone on this list agrees CGN
> sucks. In addition, it has been clearly shown that it is cheaper for an ISP to
> deploy IPv6 then CGN. Therefore the future of the Internet is clearly IPv6.
> So let's ask this question - how many of your users value having Internet
> connectivity? If you look at it from this vantage point I think everything else
> on that list pales in comparison. In Europe RIPE enters depletion this month
> or next - this is not some far off event. It's here now.
> I didn't want to implicate that message. That slide just says the there
> is always something more important than IPv6 in many organizations That
> is the reason why IPv6 deployment is going so slow. I completely agree
> that CGN as any kind of NAT sucks, but I also can see many ISPs having
> no other choice than deploy CGN. NATs are used by many smaller providers
> for years, so it is not a brand new technology comparing to IPv6. Btw.
> you hit some interesting topic. Do you have some statistics or documents
> proving that IPv6 is cheaper then deploying CGN ? I am not sure about that.
Here's what I have on CGN costs:
A fantastic overview from Lee Howard of Time Warner:
There's also an IDC study that shows it's cheaper for carrier's to deploy 6rd in addition to CGN (which is inevitable since there aren't enough IPv4 addresses left) and to eventually transition to IPv6:
I know there are actual studies and more info but I always forget what I did with the links... :-(
Anyway - that's a good start, take a look and let me know what you think,
More information about the Ipv6hackers