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

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

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Good thing operators don't have to make the binary decision to be
either entirely IPv4 or entirely IPv6.  In many access types,
including mobile, the network operator can choose / engineer / design
a service to be either IPv4, IPv6, or both depending on various
factors (user need, device constraints, ....) that make sense to the
operator and its customers.

I wish we did not need to state the obvious, but clearly we do,
operators will not intentionally deploy services that grossly misalign
with customer expectations.

Cameron