On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2/Jun/16 09:13, Willy MANGA wrote: > >> Hi, >> I guess some of you have already read that article but let me give you >> the link: >> >> https://blogs.akamai.com/2016/06/preparing-for-ipv6-only-mobile-networks-why-and-how.html >> >> >> So, can we really move forward guys ? :) > > In my experience, the economic incentive to keep NAT444 in mobile > networks vs. going any kind of IPv6 is balanced more in favour of the > former. > > I applaud folk like Apple using their market power to "force the issue". > How mobile operators will react to that will be interesting, but it > could make for a lot more impact of Android did the same. > > This one will be hard to predict, especially when a good portion of the > capex budget of the typical large scale mobile operator goes to NAT444. >
Taking my AFRINIC hat off, Another horror story cooking up. I think that under the guise of reducing costs, we are ready to spend a lot of money to build complex, hard to maintain, hard to scale mobile networks, and later hire lots of people that do 24/7 support. NAT444 reduces the cost initially, but in the long term it has hidden costs. _______________________________________________ AfrIPv6-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/afripv6-discuss
