On Thursday, October 1, 2015, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
On 10/1/2015 5:16 PM, Ca By wrote:
I run a large 464xlat dominated mobile network.
IPv4 bits are materially more expensive to deliver.
Isn't that simply a consequence of your engineering decision to use 464xlat instead of native dual-stack, as was originally envisioned for the transition?
Steady state would be nat44, which also is materially more expensive to deliver than IPv6
And, as FB has shared, IPv6 is more performant for end users, and more performant is more profitable
Isn't that also at least partially a consequence of your engineering decision to use 464xlat?
Perhaps. But it is Verizon's dual-stack in the quote, not me http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-...
Matthew Kaufman