[137656] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 17 20:39:19 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110218011841.4F865A4AFF0@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:35:03 -0800
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>=20
> In message <1DBDCA5F-16EC-428D-BC46-3BD59A6F4CDB@delong.com>, Owen =
DeLong write
> s:
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
Who do you think is going to do this reflashing? If you think that =
Grandma
is going to download an image and reflash her linksys, you're at least
slightly divorced from reality.
If you think she's going to do it and not have about a 10% brick rate
(10% of devices going from router to brick) as a result, then, you're
optimistic to say the least.
>>> It can be deployed incrementally.
>>>=20
>> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
>> alternative for many providers.
>=20
> And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.
>=20
On this we agree...
Which is why we should decide to move to IPv6 and get on with it instead
of continuing to pursue rat-holes like 240/4.
Owen
