On Monday, June 1, 2015, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > In message <CAL9jLaYXCdfViHbUPx-= > rs4vsx5mfecpfue8b7vq+au2hcx...@mail.gmail.com <javascript:;>> > , Christopher Morrow writes: > > So... I don't really see any of the above arguments for v6 in a vm > > setup to really hold water in the short term at least. I think for > > sure you'll want v6 for public services 'soon' (arguably like 10 yrs > > ago so you'd get practice and operational experience and ...) but for > > the rest sure it's 'nice', and 'cute', but really not required for > > operations (unless you have v6 only customers) > > Everyone has effectively IPv6-only customers today. IPv6 native + > CGN only works for services. Similarly DS-Lite and 464XLAT. > Sometimes you can get away w/o IPv6, sometimes you can't. In all > cases IPv4 is getting more and more expensive to support as more > customers share public IP addresses even if it is just have to > re-tune rate limits to account for the sharing. > > Agreed. Here is some data.
It's worth noting that the Samsung Galaxy S6 launched with IPv6 on by default at AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile. And the majority of the T-Mobile at Verizon customer base is on IPv6, so IPv4 is the minority right now in mobile. Oh, and when i say ipv4 is the minority i mean NAT44. Proper public ipv4 is not even on the mobile radar, but ipv6 is http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ CB > Mark > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > <javascript:;> >