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 --------------------------------