[140438] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 foot-dragging
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jima)
Wed May 11 11:00:52 2011
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:00:18 -0500
From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <8DF11306-06C7-4600-A8D4-5F9835CBB882@muada.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 05/11/2011 09:50 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 11 mei 2011, at 16:39, William Astle wrote:
>
>> I think the above two points illustrate precisely why so many networks
>> in North America simply cannot deploy IPv6 whether they want to or not.
>> We simply cannot obtain IPv6 transit from our upstreams. It's just not
>> available. And the old line about "vote with your money" doesn't work
>> when you have limited choices.
>
> Apparently the need for IPv6 isn't yet high enough to consider adding a transit provider. I've seen enough press releases from NTT and HE to know there's at least two that can do this out there.
Funny, I was just involved in a discussion on IPv6 in Canada
yesterday, and this link came up from multiple people:
http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=382 . There's also
http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=ca&type=ISP , but
I've seen some indications that there may be some inaccuracies
(Allstream announcing 2001:04c8::/33, for instance).
Jima
