Re: IPv6 native percentage (end user perspective)

[Aaron1 via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

We are getting closer to dual stacking our subs.  In the meantime, adding mams interfaces from a new ms-mpc-128g card, 
into the existing ams0 interface, thus doubling the cgnat capacity, was as easy as adding a Ethernet link to and ae 
bundle interface.

Aaron

> On Jun 19, 2025, at 5:43 PM, Niels Bakker via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> I'll bite:
>
> * Forrest Christian [Fri 20 Jun 2025, 00:06 CEST]:
> > I don't want to restart the recurring argument, but I'll just put this out there: Why bother adding the cost of 
> > supporting a dual-stack network when there is precisely zero cost for me to stick with IPv4? From a cost 
> > perspective, if I have to assign everyone an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address to deploy IPv6, why would I bother 
> > assigning the IPv6 address?
>
> What if everybody thought that way? Would we ever get to a position where we could even consider turning off IPv4 
> altogether?
>
> (We must consider eventually turning off IPv4. We've run out twice now, the first time we innovated our way out with 
> CIDR, the second time there's no other option on the table but IPv6. The lack of IPv4 is currently a global drag on 
> non-financial innovation.)
>
>
> > I have plenty of addresses to continue handing out IPv4 addresses directly to customers for at least several years, 
> > so there is no benefit to me in adding the overhead of dealing with both IPv6 and IPv4 on a per-customer basis 
> > simultaneously.
>
> For now. While your competitors are gaining valuable experience with IPv6. And put some customers behind CGNAT, 
> freeing up IPv4 addresses they can monetise in different ways, like sell or rent out as subnets.
>
> Have fun scaling your CGNAT boxes to all the traffic from the customer base you'll eventually have to put behind 
> them. If you had run dual stack then a lot of traffic wouldn't need to traverse them.
>
>
>    -- Niels.
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
> org/message/VJO36DQ4OBQCGXUXCU3D47PDVUMFQYOI/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/53UCPGBDSWIW5YY52QGWR4A7DQDOUHKE/