* Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> > What I was trying to get to is that, yes, running a single-stack is > cheaper (depending on what "cheaper" means to you) than running > dual-stack.
Wholeheartedly agreed. > That said, running IPv4-only means you put yourself at a disadvantage > as IPv6 is now where the world is going. Also wholeheartedly agreed. > Similarly, running IPv6-only means you still need to support access to > the IPv4-only Internet anyway, if you want to have paying customers or > happy users. > > So the bottom line is that for better or worse, any progressive > network in 2016 is going to have to run dual-stack in some form or > other for the foreseeable future. So the argument on whether it is > cheaper or more costly to run single- or dual-stack does not change > that fact if you are interested in remaining a going concern. My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked façade. That can easily be achieved using, e.g., protocol translation at the outer border of my network. The inside of my network, where 99.99% of all the complexity, devices, applications and so on reside, can be single stack IPv6-only today. Thus I get all the benefits of running a single stack network, minus a some fraction of a percent needed to operate the translation system. (I could in theory get rid of that too by outsourcing it somewhere.) Tore