| |||||||||||||
The answer is obvious: money.The answer is obvious: money.Posted Jan 26, 2011 18:33 UTC (Wed) by jem (subscriber, #24231)In reply to: The answer is obvious: money. by khim Parent article: LCA: IP address exhaustion and the end of the open net
So IPv6 is expensive, but NAT is not? What makes IPv6 so expensive?
That's not my experience, anyway. Of course, there aren't many providers offering IPv6 yet, but the one I know of in my area does not charge anything extra for IPv6. It's part of the package, take it or leave it. Tunnels are free, too.
How do ISPs respond when customers complain they can't reach IPv6-only sites? Sure, this won't happen for a while, but eventually it will.
(Log in to post comments)
End-to-end solution is expensive... Posted Jan 26, 2011 20:44 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] So IPv6 is expensive, but NAT is not? What makes IPv6 so expensive? I've not said NAT is not expensive. But it's less expensive then NAT+IPv6. That's not my experience, anyway. You mean: you have case study where ISP implemented NAT64 and saved money (in comparison to plain old NAT)? Hard to believe, but I'll be interested to hear more about your story. How do ISPs respond when customers complain they can't reach IPv6-only sites? Sure, this won't happen for a while, but eventually it will. I think they'll tell you these sites are broken and you should ask for them to be fixed. If you'll press they'll admit that yes, it may be fixed on their said and that they are "investigating it". The answer is the same for the last 10 years, so I doubt it'll change any time soon.
|
|||||||||||||