* Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
What I was trying to get to is that, yes, running a single-stack is cheaper (depending on what "cheaper" means to you) than running dual-stack.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage as IPv6 is now where the world is going.
Also wholeheartedly agreed.
Similarly, running IPv6-only means you still need to support access to the IPv4-only Internet anyway, if you want to have paying customers or happy users.
So the bottom line is that for better or worse, any progressive network in 2016 is going to have to run dual-stack in some form or other for the foreseeable future. So the argument on whether it is cheaper or more costly to run single- or dual-stack does not change that fact if you are interested in remaining a going concern.
My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked façade. That can easily be achieved using, e.g., protocol translation at the outer border of my network. The inside of my network, where 99.99% of all the complexity, devices, applications and so on reside, can be single stack IPv6-only today. Thus I get all the benefits of running a single stack network, minus a some fraction of a percent needed to operate the translation system. (I could in theory get rid of that too by outsourcing it somewhere.) Tore