Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
From: Scott Helms <khelms () ispalliance net>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:16:03 -0400

On 8/2/2011 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Scott Reed wrote:

And just how are you going to make all of us small ISPs, or the big ones for that matter, do that?
Well, if you want my business, you'll do it.

If not, I'll route around you as damage. If enough customers approach the problem this way, it will happen.

No disrespect intended, but I don't think you're representative of the average or even above average ISP customer. For that matter neither are the majority of the participants on this list.


In addition, I think a large number of providers are already seeing that static is, for the most part, just simpler
to manage in IPv6 and considering going that way. The cable MSOs are the obvious exception for semi-obvious
reasons specific to their technology.

From my observations only the cable MSOs are even somewhat prepared for IPv6 because Cablelabs included it in the DOCSIS 3.0 spec. The DSL and FTTx networks I've seen are much further behind to the point that only some kind of tunneling (mainly RD) makes sense as a transition technology because of the layer 2 challenges.


A large organization that does that should get their own PI space and multihome. Why would they do anything else? Owen

I thought we were talking about residential users specifically here...


--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault