RE: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs

["Sofia, Rute" <rute.sofia@siemens.com>]

Dwight,

> controlled P2P type
> service. The service has been developed to work on both
> IPv4/NAT/ALG(proxy) and IPv6 using global addresses. 
>  - will the IPv6 solution be easier/faster/cheaper to deploy?
>  - will the IPv6 solution be easier/cheaper to maintain and operate?
>  - will the IPv6 service typically offer enhance features (allowing
> content anywhere)?
>  - will it be typical for services to be developed for both IPv6 and
> IPv4/ALG or IPv6 first because it's easier or IPv6 only?
>  - others?

I am afraid that *we all* would like to have *quantitative* answers concerning such numbers. :) However, that is impossible to get. As Tim mentioned and related to (6NET) - NRENs expertise - you have plenty of info stating how to do things and the possible gaps.


> 
> From the replies to the original question, it seems that many
> applications will be easier/cheaper to deploy and operate using IPv6
> global addresses, but it's not clear how heavy the cost factor will be
> in the decision making process.
> 

There is no magic answer to the questions above. IP is IP so don't expect any major breakthrough. Having global connectivity is something that at least today can only be achieved (from a wide perspective) by means of IPv6. Or, one keeps adding hacks to deal with NAT.

The cost factor will for sure have some impact in the situation. But possibly what is really preventing a migration to IPv6 is 1) lack of generalized knowledge about current features and how mature is IPv6 when compared to IPv4 and 2) where is the business case for it.

The answer to 1) is provided by deployments in GEANT, Abilene or CERNET2, the research backbones. It shows that IPv6 is at least mature. And it is also provided by Japan IPv6 infrastructures and (starting to emerge) commercial services.
The answer to 2) is harder to get. Mainly because IPv6 is not a disruptive technology. Possible operational savings will only be seen in the long-run. Not by trying to compare IPv6 vs. IPv4 private addressing+NAT...

Regards,
Rute





> Dwight
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 4:24 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: v6ops:IPv4 vs. IPv6 operational costs
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:21:25PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> > that would surprise me. My Mac is dual stacked now, and they tell me
> > that Windows Leghorn (Longhorn?) will be as well. Comes 
> that way out  
> > of the box.
> > 
> > The question will be whether IT departments turn it on in the
> > network, not whether the hosts will use it if hey do.
> 
> The question isn't only the 'cost', it's also about the benefit.  You 
> also need to define 'cost' :)
> 
> Our experience of deploying dual-stack as far as open source 
> and vendor 
> provided solutions go on an enterprise of over 1,000 hosts is that the
> additional 'cost' is low.   
> 
> We didn't buy new hardware specifically for IPv6.   We used to run a
> parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure on BSD, but went 'properly' dual
> stacked when we reprocured our old IPv4 equipment this summer.   No
> extra cost per se.   The MRs on the procurement meant the new kit 
> supported IPv6 features (unicast amd multicast).   The costs 
> lie more in
> 
> managing the additional protocol, and in ensuring support staff have 
> expertise to do their job.
> 
> For most platforms, deployment Just Works.   The main gaps we 
> have lie 
> in certain vender applications (e.g. Exchange) and in commercial
> firewall 
> product, but from the host and router platform view, the picture is
> good. We have no issues running DNS, MXs, web, etc dual-stack.
> 
> We have occassional minor operational issues, but these cause very 
> little extra supprot effort.
> 
> By deploying dual-stack early, we believe our staff gain the expertise
> in IPv6 at an early stage.  As an educational site, we expose our CS
> graduates
> to be to the technology.   That is a benefit in our context.
> 
> I would imagine the backbone NRENs that have deployed would say
> likewise, provided they deployed IPv6 incrementally through new
> procurements 
> rather than going out and buying new line cards specifically 
> to support
> IPv6 in hardware.   
> 
> You can find example deployment reports at www.6net.org.
> 
> In terms of benefits, well, restoring global addressability is
> important, and in places where IPv4+NAT was used we can run IPv6 in
> parallel and use point to point conferencing and other 
> applications that
> would have 
> been very hard to do between two NATed sites.   Dual stack 
> with IPv4+NAT
> 
> alongside IPv6 will be common, I believe.
> 
> Another benefit is that, as an educational site, we see new innovation
> and 
> interest in networking, I believe in part because catering for NATs is
> no 
> longer an issue.   A couple of student developed packages 
> have attracted
> 
> (some) commercial interest.
> 
> I think Fred sums it up well when he says that had a business 
> case been
> required for the web, it probably wouldn't have happened.
> 
> -- 
> Tim/::1
> 
> 
> 
>