On Monday, June 1, 2015, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <CAL9jLaYXCdfViHbUPx-= rs4vSx5mFECpfuE8b7VQ+Au2hCXpMQ@mail.gmail.com <javascript:;>> , Christopher Morrow writes:
So... I don't really see any of the above arguments for v6 in a vm setup to really hold water in the short term at least. I think for sure you'll want v6 for public services 'soon' (arguably like 10 yrs ago so you'd get practice and operational experience and ...) but for the rest sure it's 'nice', and 'cute', but really not required for operations (unless you have v6 only customers)
Everyone has effectively IPv6-only customers today. IPv6 native + CGN only works for services. Similarly DS-Lite and 464XLAT. Sometimes you can get away w/o IPv6, sometimes you can't. In all cases IPv4 is getting more and more expensive to support as more customers share public IP addresses even if it is just have to re-tune rate limits to account for the sharing.
Agreed. Here is some data.
It's worth noting that the Samsung Galaxy S6 launched with IPv6 on by default at AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile. And the majority of the T-Mobile at Verizon customer base is on IPv6, so IPv4 is the minority right now in mobile. Oh, and when i say ipv4 is the minority i mean NAT44. Proper public ipv4 is not even on the mobile radar, but ipv6 is http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ CB
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org <javascript:;>