[190403] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 deployment excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Sat Jul 2 14:48:01 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <5777F0A4.4040102@l-w.ca>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:47:56 -0400
To: William Astle <lost@l-w.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Living in an area where we have a dense pocket without broadband available i=
s a key problem. The two incumbents fail to service the area despite one hav=
ing fiber 1200' away at the entry to our street.=20
One area incumbent can do native v6, the other does 6rd but they don't serve=
the area so it's even moot. I'm in the process of building my own fiber now=
due to this problem. The service will likely look like native v6 and 100.64=
for v4 w/ nat. This penalty for v4 will become more apparent over time is m=
y guess.=20
Jared Mauch
> On Jul 2, 2016, at 12:49 PM, William Astle <lost@l-w.ca> wrote:
>=20
> My upstream(s) refuse(s) to support IPv6
>=20
> This *is* a deal breaker. The pat response of "get new upstreams" is not h=
elpful
