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

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

>>
>> If an operator with small number of subscribers directly deploy native
>> IPv6
>> and NAT64 for migration from IPv4 to IPv6, but other operators in the
>> same
>> locale deploy dual stack or DS-Lite or other technologies. The contents
>> may
>> not support IPv6 immediately. Because of the block of some service,
>> this IPv6 only operator will lose of subscribers.
>
> Yes, I agree an operator that does not support IPv4 will lose subscribers
> that need IPv4.

and when either they see that happening, or think it'll start
happening... the money argument kicks in and they will deploy
solutions.

>
>> I agree that the current IPv4 only contents will support IPv6 (or
>> NAT64) in the end. But it is "in the end".
>
> If there is a subscriber need for IPv4, then, yes, subscribers should
> be given access to IPv4.  However, that can be provided with a tunnel
> such as Dual-Stack Lite.
>
> I don't see the problem.  What is missing?

I'm not seeing what's missing either ;(

-chris