From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Loiacono
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:27 PM
To: Dwight Jamieson
Cc: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Pekka Savola; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs
It's my understanding that if you run an IPv6 only network, you will still need a NAT (e.g., NAT-PT) anyway to talk with v4 hosts.
Joe
"Dwight Jamieson" <djamies
@nortel.com>
Sent by: owner-v6ops11/23/2005 01:46 PM
To: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs
Pekka,
Looking a few years down the road, assuming that bulk of the bleeding is
over, will operating that network be simpler, easier, cheaper than
operating a network with private addressing today?
How painful is introducing new applications behind NAT/ALGs? What
percentage of an IT department's budget spent on issues relating to
private addressing?
-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:33 PM
To: Jamieson, Dwight [CAR:NP10:EXCH]
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dwight Jamieson wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any studies that quantify the differences between
> the operating costs of an IPv4 network using private addressing vs. an
> IPv6 network using globally unique addresses?
I've not but I'd be interested to see _real_ calculations.
I assume from your wording that you're referring to an IPv6-only
network. If so, my suspicion is that the costs can be high as you
need to live on the bleeding edge, i.e., are the one that'll find the
bugs, need to get a lot of consulting to get the network to work as
v6-only, etc.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings