[158129] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Wed Nov 21 15:55:27 2012
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Jay'" <tech-lists@packet-labs.net>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <50AC5DE6.4050107@packet-labs.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:54:34 -0600
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We have cable broadband operations using vendor M and we're a little =
gun-shy because that vendor has lagged the other two with IPv6 support, =
and when Comcast and TimeWarner began their production IPv6 rollouts on =
their CMTes it wasn't with vendor M.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay [mailto:tech-lists@packet-labs.net]=20
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Big day for IPv6 - 1% native penetration
On 11/20/2012 1:24 PM, Blair Trosper wrote:
> However, I still scratch my head on why most major US ISPs *have* =
robust
> IPv6 peering and infrastructure and are ready to go, but they have not
> turned it on for their fiber/cable/DSL customers for reasons that are =
not
> clear to me.
>
> I keep pestering my home ISP about turning it on (since their network =
is
> now 100% DOCSIS 3), but they just seem to think I'm making up words. =
One
> can hope, though.
This has partially been a vendor issue, at least for cable providers.=20
Two of the major CMTS vendors (one starts with C, the other A) have had=20
IPv6 related bugs in fairly recent code releases. Both of the MSOs=20
I've worked for have had to delay IPv6 deployment while those vendors=20
get their waterfowl properly aligned. I know we're still waiting for=20
one vendor to get it straightened out.
J
