[137173] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Wed Feb 9 18:56:20 2011
To: Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:56:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4D52E942.5000607@ispalliance.net> (Scott Helms's message of "Wed,
09 Feb 2011 14:21:38 -0500")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Scott Helms <khelms@ispalliance.net> writes:
> 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
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.
-r
