[137655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Thu Feb 17 20:18:57 2011
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:59:54 -0800."
<1DBDCA5F-16EC-428D-BC46-3BD59A6F4CDB@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:18:41 +1100
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <1DBDCA5F-16EC-428D-BC46-3BD59A6F4CDB@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> >
> > You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> > to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> > code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> > box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
>
> Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
> having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
> to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
> replacing the CPE cheaper.
It depends on the CPE device. Lots of CPE devices can be re-flashed
in place. It just requires the will to make the images available.
> > It can be deployed incrementally.
> >
> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
> alternative for many providers.
And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.
> Owen
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
