Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Scott Helms <khelms () ispalliance net>]

IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy 
layer 2 gear (usually DSLAMs that drop any frame with IPv6 in the 
EtherType field), inability to upgrade customer gear efficiently (again 
mainly a DSL problem where TR-069 isn't in use), and the requirement to 
replace PPPoE/oA termination gear (like Redback SMSs) means that a small 
telco (say 3000 DSL lines) could be facing a multi-million dollar 
expense to enable IPv6 for customers.

For ISPs in this circumstance the choice will be CGNAT rather than IPv6 
for a number of years because the cost is much lower and according to 
the vendors selling CGNAT solutions the impact to end users is (almost) 
unnoticeable.

On 2/9/2011 1:46 PM, Stephens, Josh wrote:
> Not something I'd typically use this list for but I have an opportunity to host a debate of sorts on IPv6 where I'm taking a 
> very pro IPv6 stance and I need someone who wants to argue the other side - effectively that most people don't need to worry 
> about it for a long time still or until someone makes them.
>
> Any takers feel free to ping me directly...
>
> Thanks,
> Josh


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