[137105] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Wed Feb 9 14:24:11 2011
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:21:38 -0500
From: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <7715397372EE344E96F03DBEA1E8894E2856E6@ADF-MBX-01.tul.solarwinds.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
layer 2 gear (usually DSLAMs that drop any frame with IPv6 in the
EtherType field), inability to upgrade customer gear efficiently (again
mainly a DSL problem where TR-069 isn't in use), and the requirement to
replace PPPoE/oA termination gear (like Redback SMSs) means that a small
telco (say 3000 DSL lines) could be facing a multi-million dollar
expense to enable IPv6 for customers.
For ISPs in this circumstance the choice will be CGNAT rather than IPv6
for a number of years because the cost is much lower and according to
the vendors selling CGNAT solutions the impact to end users is (almost)
unnoticeable.
On 2/9/2011 1:46 PM, Stephens, Josh wrote:
> Not something I'd typically use this list for but I have an opportunity to host a debate of sorts on IPv6 where I'm taking a very pro IPv6 stance and I need someone who wants to argue the other side - effectively that most people don't need to worry about it for a long time still or until someone makes them.
>
> Any takers feel free to ping me directly...
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
