[121835] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Stewart)
Thu Jan 28 08:16:19 2010
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:15:56 -0500
In-Reply-To: <88ac5c711001280447m453dd39aqf99e9f3246be9d65@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Paul Stewart" <pstewart@nexicomgroup.net>
To: "Richard Barnes" <richard.barnes@gmail.com>,
"Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That really makes sense - on an incredibly smaller scale (and I mean MUCH s=
maller scale), we operate cable modem in two small communities - currently =
we use 3 IP addresses per subscriber. One for the cable modem itself, one =
for the subscriber (or more depending on their package), and one for voice =
delivery (packetcable). If we moved even two of three IP assignments to na=
tive V6 we'd reclaim a lot of V4 space - I can only imagine someone their s=
ize and what this means...
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:richard.barnes@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:47 AM
To: Kevin Oberman
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is
starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out
of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with >1 IP address (e.g.,
for user data / control of the cable box).
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800
>> From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: William McCall
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
>> >
>> > Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Withou=
t
>> > going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving
>> > towards this trial?
>>
>>
>> SWAG: Comcast is a mobile operator. =A0At some point NAT becomes very
>> expensive for mobile devices and it makes sense to use IPv6 where you
>> don't need to do NAT. =A0Once you deploy v6 on your mobile net, it is =
to
>> your advantage to have the stuff your mobile devices connect to also b=
e
>> v6. =A0Do do THAT your network needs to transport v6 and once your net=
is
>> ipv6 enabled, there is no reason not to leverage that capability to th=
e
>> rest of your network. /SWAG
>>
>> My gut instinct says that mobile operators will be a major player in v=
6
>> adoption.
>
> SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and
> Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far).
> --
> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
> Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
> E-mail: oberman@es.net =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Phone: +1 510=
486-8634
> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 =A0EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to=
which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material=
. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and =
then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying,=
distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
