IPv6 Deployment Scenarios Part 4: Address conservation and business models

Posted by

The primary purpose of migrating to IPv6 is to be able to grow your current customer base without having to acquire additional IPv4 addresses.  There will be a point in time where your IPv4 requests will simply get denied and you will be given a block of IPv6 addresses to use.  With this in mind, the migration strategy and business model you chose should focus on providing a good growth path and reduce the number of IPv4 addresses required to deploy new customers.

Here is a “sample” tiered structure for a new provider that supports IPv6 and IPv4:

  • Standard Service – IPv6 address (NAT 64 used to provide connectivity to IPv4 sites)
  • Premium Service – IPv6 address + public IPv4 dynamic address (dual-stack or IPv4-only client)
  • Premium Plus Service – IPv6 address + public IPv4 static address (dual-stack or IPv4-only client)
These tiered structures are combined with various speed and cap levels to form the overall service offering. For example Standard Gold service provides an IPv6 address, 10Mbps x 1Mbps, and a 75GB cap. Premium Gold service provides an IPv6 and dynamic IPv4 address, 10Mbps x 1Mbps, and a 75GB cap.  Premium Diamond service provides an IPv6 and dynamic IPv4 address, 20Mbps x 1Mbps, and a 150GB cap. These obviously are just some made-up examples but give you an idea of how these can be leveraged.
Most users will just take a Standard tier service offering and their device (router or PC) will need to support IPv6. NAT64 will allow a smaller pool of IPv4 addresses to be mapped to a group of clients. You may have 5,000 clients but can get by with a smaller pool of addresses (1000 maybe). If they don’t have IPv6 support they will have to take the Premium service to get the IPv4 address. This will cost more and average users should be encouraged to upgrade and allowed to move down to Standard service when they do. I believe by making IPv6 the “standard” service we can start making this transition a little bit faster. If you need IPv4 you will have to pay a slight premium to do so.

 

Advertisements

One comment

  1. NAT64 could just as easily be replaced with IPv6 + RFC1918 dual-stack. I find NAT64 to be a nice technology by RFC1918 NAT is probably a more realistic approach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s