[128009] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Thu Jul 22 20:14:47 2010
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:47:21 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C48CCD2.5000308@foobar.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>,
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +0100
Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6 customer".
"IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3795086/IPv6-The-Future-of-IPTV.htm
> 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
>
