[128030] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for comments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Fri Jul 23 06:19:11 2010
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:18:39 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100723094721.61f6ed4d@opy.nosense.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23/07/2010 01:17, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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
I understand that there are several networks doing this; the STB - like the
CPE modem - is managed by the service provider and the customer has no
management / control access over it. The customer stays on ipv4 for their
regular access product.
Someone offline pointed me at the Google IPv6 Implementors 2010 conference,
at which:
> https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/13_Byrne_T-Mobile_IPv6GoogleMeeting.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
This is genuinely interesting.
Nick
