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

[Anfinsen, Ragnar]

On 12.02.15, 12.24, "Tore Anderson" <tore at fud.no> wrote:



>IPv6 doesn't relieve you of IPv4 growth pains until you can start
>shutting down IPv4 in parts of your network, and reassign those
>reclaimed IPv4 addresses to more valuable end-points (such as the CPEs).
>
>However, once you have implemented IPv6 (and I understand that your new
>network architecture supports native IPv6?), you can actually do stuff
>like that. Mikael already mentioned MAP and lw4o6, and I'd just like to
>add that this does not necessarily mean oversubscription of IPv4
>addresses - at least with MAP, you can still assign "whole" /32s to
>customers (or even larger prefixes for that matter).
>
>These technologies also allow for more efficient utilisation of your
>available IPv4 address space then what you're usually able to
>accomplish in a traditional IPv4 network. If you assign a /24 to the
>MAP service, you can make use of every single one of the 256 IP
>addresses - including the .0 and .255 if you so desire.
>
>You can do similar stuff in the data centre BTW, and I'm sure my
>employer would be happy to have me help you out with that. ;-)

Thnx... Might take you up on that one... ;)

>
>> 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.
>
>Can you really with a straight face today call your product «premium»,
>when it lacks the IPv6 support at least two of your largest competitors
>offer?

Keep in mind that end customers don't care about IP addresses but 
services, and as long as CGN like technology reduces the service level. As 
of today every service available on IPv6 is also available on IPv4, hence 
as long as one uses native IPv4 the service is what we call a Premium 
service.

/Ragnar