[167131] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Livingood, Jason)
Mon Dec 2 09:46:22 2013
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:45:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <DF2B23A8-7EB9-4547-8BE3-8C396F8E6CF8@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Wait, ISPs rolling out native dual stack are "victimizing" their customers?=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: Owen DeLong [owen@delong.com]=0A=
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 4:41 AM=0A=
To: Leo Vegoda=0A=
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=0A=
Subject: Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO=0A=
=0A=
Agreed=85 Unforutnately, the big guys (Comcast, AT&T) in America seem to li=
ke victimizing their customers with undersized assignments, limiting choice=
of proper prefix sizes to only their business class customers. I=92m not s=
ure why they are doing this. I know when I=92ve had conversations with them=
, they haven=92t exactly given a reason so much as just said that they thou=
ght a /48 was ridiculous.=0A=
=0A=
Of course, if AT&T is blocking protocol 41, that=92s even worse, because at=
least so long as that isn=92t blocked, you can still get an HE tunnel and =
get a /48 if you need it anyway.=0A=
=0A=
Owen=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
