[112098] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Feb 19 06:15:21 2009
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:15:13 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAADndqM7/1KcS5fPSGZyhCG6AQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The really scary thing is that deploying carrier-grade NAT might be cheaper
> to the service provider than rolling IPv6 to its residential subscribers.
The really scary thing is that in areas where there are only two major
ISPs, both might go for CGN and then you have no choice.
The important thing is to have proper competition, that's the way
innovation gets into the market.
On the other hand, I have little problem in seeing a future with different
service offerings, one being "IPv4 only behind CGN" and another being
"globally routable IPv4 address with 6to4 support" and a third being
"globally routable IPv4 address with native IPv6 and a /56 (or /48)".
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
