Why do we still need IPv4 when we are migrating to IPv6...

[Ca By]

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Anfinsen, Ragnar <
Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no> wrote:

> Hi guys.
>
> I am working with my management team to implement IPv6, but I got an
> interesting question from one of the managers; Why do we need more IPv4 if
> we are moving towards IPv6?
>
> A quick background; We are having discussions around IPv4 and IPv6 and the
> need to eventually buy more IPv4 addresses to keep a premium level on our
> Internet access.
>
> My argument is that we need addresses as long as there are important
> services that only do IPv4 (yes, there are still a few, especially in
> Norway), and as long as the other ISP are reluctant to implement IPv6
> (luckily in Norway, all the major ISPs have already come a long way). When
> IPv6 reaches critical mass is the $5000 dollar question which I wish I had
> the answer for.
>
> So, any thoughts on this topic, and any qualified guesses on when we no
> longer need to do IPv4 and still be able to call our internet product
> premium?
>
>

I always cringe when folks say premium internet.  Internet is always "best
effort", we are all always reduced to the least common denominator for
network quality.

I would say networks that only have ipv4 are not doing their best effort.
There will not be suitable truly ipv6-only offering in the next 10 Years
because of these laggards.

That said, buying ipv4 makes me feel ill. Please put ipv4 where it belong
in the cgn / nat64 / MAP br / aftr.

Ipv4 is not premium, it is legacy services deployed by companies on a
downward slide. . My customers care about fb and google and netflix, those
are top services and all on ipv6

CB


> /Ragnar
> Altibox AS
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20150211/96018e0c/attachment.htm>