[128007] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Thu Jul 22 18:58:00 2010
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C48BA4F.6030708@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to simplify
> them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
> However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
> more or less forced into these scenarios by IPv4 exhaustion.
Some of the extremely large operators have found themselves having to
deploy ipv6 extensively in order to manage CPE devices and their
infrastructure networks. However, I'm not aware of any large provider
which is deploying ipv6-only customer access products, either due to a
shortage of ipv4 space or any other reason. If you can supply names of
providers doing this, I'd be very interested to hear.
That's not to say that they won't start doing this relatively shortly.
And you correctly point out that we need to create solutions _now_ so
that access providers will have feature equivalence when they start
deploying ipv6 in anger on access / hosted networks.
This is a cue to get people on this list to shout at their vendors for
ipv6 feature equivalence on their favourite kit.
Nick
