Richard Barnes wrote:
What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with >1 IP address (e.g., for user data / control of the cable box).
What do you meaning starting, that happened years ago. 15 million ip subscribers, 6 million voice subscribers, 30 million cable tv subscribers...
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800 From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
-----Original Message----- From: William McCall Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving towards this trial?
SWAG: Comcast is a mobile operator. At some point NAT becomes very expensive for mobile devices and it makes sense to use IPv6 where you don't need to do NAT. Once you deploy v6 on your mobile net, it is to your advantage to have the stuff your mobile devices connect to also be v6. Do do THAT your network needs to transport v6 and once your net is ipv6 enabled, there is no reason not to leverage that capability to the rest of your network. /SWAG
My gut instinct says that mobile operators will be a major player in v6 adoption. SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far). -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751