Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Yiu L. Lee <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed.  The 2x cost is really just the packet core ... which is of
>> course a lot of money to double for no tangible benefit ..... talk
>> about no business case .... And, still have numbering issues, customer
>> experience is the same as IPv4-only + NAT44 and approximately the same
>> as IPv6-only + NAT64
>>
> Life cycle of mobile equipments could be every 2-3 years, but life cycle of
> consumer electronics could be 5+ years. Consider many large TVs with
> Internet service selling today are still running IPv4-only, fixed line
> operators must prepare to support them in foreseeable future.
>

Depends what box you are talking about, but our accountants like 5+
years for gear.... GSM gear is still around and not going anywhere for
a long time.  Other network functions, especially NAT and stateful IP
stuff expires quicker.  I can say that mobile phone lifecycle is
between 9 and 24 months.... which is quick.

> That said, I am not saying an operator must build a dual-stack core network,
> there are technologies such as DS-lite and Softwire Mesh available to run a
> pure IPv6 core network with dual-stack edge. All I am saying is the customer
> experience of IPv4-only + NAT444 could be the same as IPv6-only + NAT64, but
> the technologies and plan to offer these service are very different.

Agreed.  3GPP mobile  can do native v6 easy.  Other network types, not so easy.