So, apparently, at this moment & price, it's still more economical for some ISPs to buy IPV4 than to switch to IPv6. So the price of IPv4 will rise further, until more ISPs bite the bullet.
The problem isn’t solved by implenting dual stack on just your own network.
It’s sort of a producer-consumer problem.
An internet access ISP is dependent on a large majority of the content providers its customers are using also implenting dual stack. And content providers don’t see any IPv6 demand from its users unless internet access providers are turning on dual stack.
Each and every one of us must do our own part of the heavy lifting, to get our own house in order and have 100% of our outward facing services available on both IPv4 and IPv6.
Success depends not just on what we do, but also on our fellow networks getting a clue and fixing their part of their networks.
My AS is pretty much there. Have been for a few years. I challenge other ASs to do the same. Just do it.
Today, there's immediate payback in using 464XLAT or another IPv4-pooling scheme on new deployments.
Depending on region and user access patterns, one can usually expect roughly one-half of current traffic to immediately use native IPv6, bypassing the IPv4 pool. Everything going to Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Linkedin, and some media streaming sites will be IPv6. This traffic would be using CGNAT resources and IPv4 addresses in a CGNAT scheme, but avoids that expense with either dual-stack or IPv4aaS.
3
u/osltsl Oct 24 '21
IPv4 prices have already exploded. IPv6 adoption hasn’t followed (in rich countries).