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

[Lorenzo Colitti]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Anfinsen, Ragnar <
Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no> wrote:

> Reducing the price of the service is not an option for the sales people,
> unless there are other benefits, and right now there are none. Spending
> for example $650K on IP addresses is far cheaper than reducing the price
> by 20% in addition to investing in the technology to enable MAP, lw4o6 or
> CGN. So unfortunately, we can put the ideology aside and concentrate on
> deploying IPv6 while keeping IPv4 as good as possible. When we finally
> meet the magic threshold, we can start discussing which technology is best
> for keeping the legacy IPv4 available.


But: at some point, you'll *have* to invest in the technology to enable
IPv4-over-IPv6. Not deploying it today means you save X kroner in interest
payments on the debt you incur to pay for it today (and possibly save Y
kroner if that technology is cheaper in the future).

On the other hand, IPv4 is a sunk cost that is never coming back - because
when you are in a position to sell those IPv4 addresses that you bought, it
means that you don't need IPv4 any more, and probably other networks don't
either. So the price is going to be lower, and you'll lose a lot of the
money that you spend on IPv4.

So: compare the interest payments with the write-off with IPv4. What's the
outcome?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20150213/ad19697f/attachment.htm>