[168107] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Jan 9 05:33:10 2014
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:32:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1401081610190.23614@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart3831707.qjeP7ICiJC
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:03:13 AM Justin M. Streiner=20
wrote:
> My guesses for the foot-dragging, re: v6 deployment on
> FiOS: 1. Can't get their set-top boxes working on it
> yet. One customer service rep told me this. I didn't
> feel up to starting the whole "what's wrong with
> dual-stack?" argument.
Well, typically, linear Tv services are ran in their own=20
VLAN and on RFC 1918 space. So in essence, they can start=20
deploying IPv6 for the Internet VLAN (I'm not claiming to=20
know their network design, just speaking generally) while=20
they figure out how to get their STB's supporting IPv6.
The majority of STB's support neither IGMPv3 nor IPv6, for=20
the same reason. The manufacturers don't see the point, and=20
the operators who buy from them don't see the need to put=20
them on the spot (which is all bad).
I could see an issue where the STB also has some OTT content=20
capability (like VoD or cloud-based DVR, e.t.c.), and if the=20
servers pumping that content out are not part of the walled-
garden, NAT44 would be needed to bring that content down to=20
an STB that has an RFC 1918 address driving it. In such a=20
case, supporting IPv6 on the STB sooner rather than later=20
alleviates pressures associated with NAT44.
So lack of IPv6 support in the STB is not a deal-breaking=20
reason, IMHO, since users are generally using IPv6 on=20
laptops, desktops, smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles,=20
OTT services, Tv's, media streamers, e.t.c., which typically=20
fall under the Internet VLAN, i.e., aren't in some walled-
garden.
Mark.
--nextPart3831707.qjeP7ICiJC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=KGRH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart3831707.qjeP7ICiJC--
