I missed the morning talks as they conflicted with my advanced IPv6 class, but I did catch the afternoon sessions.
It seemed like there were three camps at INET Denver: people already embracing the future by deploying IPv6, people trying to avoid IPv6 as long as possible, and people who planned to make money from both of the other two camps.
Let’s talk about the “wait as long as possible” camp.
For almost two decades the argument from the “business side” of IT was there was “no compelling business reason to move to IPv6“. (That article is is from 2009 by the way, but I haven’t seen a new argument since then.) It’s true, there’s been no “killer app” that everyone demanded that was only available via IPv6. It’s also true that doing nothing was a legitimate strategy for quite a while. After all, what good is it to have a telephone (IPv6), if no one else has one? Until recently, moving to IPv6 truly didn’t have a compelling business argument. After all, doing nothing costs nothing. Mostly.
The Internet has changed. And we’re (almost) out of IPv4 addresses, so you have to do something. Sadly, too many ISPs have tried to do what they think is the cheapest and most minimal amount of work they could get away with. That’s Carrier Grade NAT (CGN).
The economics have changed, too. Lee Howard of Time Warner Cable had a very interesting talk where he deconstructed, and then destroyed the myth that CGN is cheaper to deploy than dual-stack. Since he’s the Director of Network Technology for Time Warner Cable, I guess he knows more about the ISP business than most people.
Mr Howard’s talk shows that CGN will cost you in (unhappy) customers, support costs, and only delay the inevitable, when you’ll have to move to dual-stack anyway. His talk effectively demonstrates that the infrastructure and operational costs of a CGN network are more expensive than dual-stack.
There’s your business case. Deploy IPv6 and save money. Done. Now get to work.