Folks, I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting. Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site: http://www.comcast6.net We have also made available a partial, dual-stack version of our portal which can be found at: http://ipv6.comcast.net Please do not hesitate to contact me via email with any questions, comments, or clarifications. If you feel that others will find this information interesting feel free to forward this message. Regards, John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 =========================================
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:23, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
Folks,
I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting.
Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site:
We have also made available a partial, dual-stack version of our portal which can be found at:
Incredible news! Very exciting... unfortunately, at least from here (Comcast Business Class in the SF Bay Area), at the moment, both of these links appear to lead to the same portal page without any information visible regarding your IPv6 trial plans. Best, -Bill
There was an adjustment that was required on our end. It is in place. Do you have any form of IPv6 connectivity? If yes, this is why you are seeing the same portal. This will clear up shortly. John On 1/27/10 3:47 PM, "Bill Fehring" <lists@billfehring.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:23, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
Folks,
I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting.
Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site:
We have also made available a partial, dual-stack version of our portal which can be found at:
Incredible news! Very exciting... unfortunately, at least from here (Comcast Business Class in the SF Bay Area), at the moment, both of these links appear to lead to the same portal page without any information visible regarding your IPv6 trial plans.
Best,
-Bill
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 =========================================
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
There was an adjustment that was required on our end. It is in place. Great, got it working, thanks! ...partially Safari/OSX's fault, but mostly mine for not realizing what was going on quickly enough.
Do you have any form of IPv6 connectivity? If yes, this is why you are seeing the same portal. This will clear up shortly. Yeah... for now that's a Hurricane Electric tunnel, but native v6 over DOCSIS 3 would be way cooler, not to belittle the amazing efforts of HE.
-Bill
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
There was an adjustment that was required on our end. It is in place. Great, got it working, thanks! ...partially Safari/OSX's fault, but mostly mine for not realizing what was going on quickly enough.
Do you have any form of IPv6 connectivity? If yes, this is why you are seeing the same portal. This will clear up shortly. Yeah... for now that's a Hurricane Electric tunnel, but native v6 over DOCSIS 3 would be way cooler, not to belittle the amazing efforts of HE. [jjmb] native, dual-stack is exactly one of the approaches we will be
On 1/27/10 5:00 PM, "Bill Fehring" <lists@billfehring.com> wrote: trialing.
-Bill
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 =========================================
On 1/27/2010 15:19, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
On 1/27/10 5:00 PM, "Bill Fehring" <lists@billfehring.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
There was an adjustment that was required on our end. It is in place. Great, got it working, thanks! ...partially Safari/OSX's fault, but mostly mine for not realizing what was going on quickly enough.
Do you have any form of IPv6 connectivity? If yes, this is why you are seeing the same portal. This will clear up shortly. Yeah... for now that's a Hurricane Electric tunnel, but native v6 over DOCSIS 3 would be way cooler, not to belittle the amazing efforts of HE. [jjmb] native, dual-stack is exactly one of the approaches we will be trialing.
Very awesome. If you served my area I would sign up for an account just to try it out. I have IPv6 access and can't see your site, but I did look at it a bit on my phone and I'm quite impressed to see someone of your size doing what you're doing. ~Seth
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
Folks,
I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting.
Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site:
We have also made available a partial, dual-stack version of our portal which can be found at:
Great work! I hope we see a lot more of these types of announcements! I have my own cooking in the oven :) Cameron
Wonderful! In all seriousness, will any attempt be made to select trial applicants based on (apparent) clue level and/or to receive feedback through channels other than the usual Tier 1 support?
Thanks. Initially it would be ideal (even preferred) to target trial subscribers with greater IPv6 awareness. The technical team will absolutely remain engaged as part of the support process. HTH, John On 1/27/10 5:50 PM, "Steven Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
Wonderful!
In all seriousness, will any attempt be made to select trial applicants based on (apparent) clue level and/or to receive feedback through channels other than the usual Tier 1 support?
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 =========================================
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jason Brzozowski" <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> To: "Steven Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Cc: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
Thanks.
Initially it would be ideal (even preferred) to target trial subscribers with greater IPv6 awareness. The technical team will absolutely remain engaged as part of the support process.
HTH,
John
I filled out the form but nowhere on there does it allow to brag up or differentiate yourself from the typical home user (or select which trial(s) you may be interested in). It appears the differentiators are your PC OS, gaming platform and if you have more than 1 IP. tv
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>wrote:
Wonderful!
In all seriousness, will any attempt be made to select trial applicants based on (apparent) clue level and/or to receive feedback through channels other than the usual Tier 1 support?
*How will you select trial areas?* Some of our trials will not be geographically-bound, meaning a customer from anywhere in our network could participate, while other trials will be bound to particular areas. *How will you select customers to participate in these trials?* Customers can volunteer to participate in a trial by completing an online form at the Comcast IPv6 Information Center, at http://www.comcast6.net/volunteer.php. Once we're ready to start a trial, we will search for customers meeting any applicable criteria for participation (geographic area, home computer OS or equipment, etc.) and invite them to participate in a specific trial. I'm excited to be on the same side as the 500lb gorilla for once, -Nick
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:50:22 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
In all seriousness, will any attempt be made to select trial applicants based on (apparent) clue level and/or to receive feedback through channels other than the usual Tier 1 support?
Two comments: 1) People who manage to find out about the trial and apply probably have already done some self-selection on clue level. Big difference between Joe Sixpack and Joe IPV6-pack. 2) Even if some Joe Sixpacks manage to get into the test, that's good - because Comcast needs to know what the unclued masses need for support, etc.
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? -- William McCall On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM, John Jason Brzozowski <john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
Folks,
I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting.
Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site:
We have also made available a partial, dual-stack version of our portal which can be found at:
Please do not hesitate to contact me via email with any questions, comments, or clarifications.
If you feel that others will find this information interesting feel free to forward this message.
Regards,
John ========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 =========================================
-----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.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:oberman@es.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:56 PM To: George Bonser Cc: William McCall; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far).
Ahh, ok. I was fooled by this: http://www.comcast.net/mobile/
They'll need to be soon to keep up with others in their space (not that they generally compete directly thanks to franchise laws), although I'm not sure how the data side of things is handled for MVNO's, normally they don't have any network of their own: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10215445-94.html http://unbelievablyfair.com/ -Scott -----Original Message----- From: George Bonser [mailto:gbonser@seven.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:56 AM To: Kevin Oberman Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:oberman@es.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:56 PM To: George Bonser Cc: William McCall; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far).
Ahh, ok. I was fooled by this: http://www.comcast.net/mobile/
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 22:55, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:oberman@es.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:56 PM To: George Bonser Cc: William McCall; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far).
Ahh, ok. I was fooled by this: http://www.comcast.net/mobile/
Does G4 count? I have seen fliers from Comcast talking about mobile G4 access in my area apparently. I have Comcast Business class w/5 IPs. Linux and WinXP, own servers/dns and PTR on one IP so far. I also signed up. -- steve steve pirk refiamerica.org "father... the sleeper has awakened..." paul atreides - dune kexp.org member august '09
steve pirk:> Does G4 count? I have seen fliers from Comcast talking about mobile G4 Comcast is using Clearwire for 4G. Seattle 4G rolled-out about 2 weeks ago. Many more markets to be turned-up this spring. No IPv6 in the configs at this time, but most of the core seems capable. Clear is layer-2 up to the major market POPs so it would seem to be mostly a config/firmware change on the network side. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
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). 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
On Jan 28, 2010, at 7:47 AM, 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).
But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address-intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements? If they start appearing with some frequency real soon now, then maybe it's just a time-until-overflow issue. If not, then maybe there are other/better explanations. TV
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
-----Original Message----- From: tvest@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12 To: Richard Barnes Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
<SNIP>
But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address- intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements?
Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as a swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ... /TJ
On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:07 AM, TJ wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: tvest@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12 To: Richard Barnes Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
<SNIP>
But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address- intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements?
Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as a swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ...
/TJ
I have no particular reason to to doubt that claim, and lots of reasons to actively hope that you are right. That said, the appearance of more public commitments like this -- and sooner rather than later -- could make a large difference, e.g., by reducing the general level of uncertainty (and uncertainty-amplifying speculation) during the terminal stages of IPv4 allocation. While no commercial entity would (and none should) willingly make such a public commitment before they're ready, it would be prudent to consider the potential downsides of that looming uncertainty when making judgements about how "ready" (or perhaps "ready enough") should be defined. TV
From: tvest@eyeconomics.com Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:34:52 -0500
On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:07 AM, TJ wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: tvest@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12 To: Richard Barnes Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
<SNIP>
But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address- intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements?
Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as a swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ...
/TJ
I have no particular reason to to doubt that claim, and lots of reasons to actively hope that you are right.
That said, the appearance of more public commitments like this -- and sooner rather than later -- could make a large difference, e.g., by reducing the general level of uncertainty (and uncertainty-amplifying speculation) during the terminal stages of IPv4 allocation.
While no commercial entity would (and none should) willingly make such a public commitment before they're ready, it would be prudent to consider the potential downsides of that looming uncertainty when making judgements about how "ready" (or perhaps "ready enough") should be defined.
Might be worth noting that Comcast has been using IPv6 heavily for internal connectivity (including router access) for some time and already had substantial experience with IPv6, so I suspect that they are ahead of others on this. -- 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
That really makes sense - on an incredibly smaller scale (and I mean MUCH smaller scale), we operate cable modem in two small communities - currently we use 3 IP addresses per subscriber. One for the cable modem itself, one for the subscriber (or more depending on their package), and one for voice delivery (packetcable). If we moved even two of three IP assignments to native V6 we'd reclaim a lot of V4 space - I can only imagine someone their size and what this means... Paul -----Original Message----- From: Richard Barnes [mailto:richard.barnes@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 7:47 AM To: Kevin Oberman Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials 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). 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
* Paul Stewart (pstewart@nexicomgroup.net) wrote:
That really makes sense - on an incredibly smaller scale (and I mean MUCH smaller scale), we operate cable modem in two small communities - currently we use 3 IP addresses per subscriber. One for the cable modem itself, one for the subscriber (or more depending on their package), and one for voice delivery (packetcable). If we moved even two of three IP assignments to native V6 we'd reclaim a lot of V4 space - I can only imagine someone their size and what this means...
Paul
Excuse the newbie question: Why use public IP space for local CPE management and VoIP? Doesn't DOCSIS support traffic separation? /J
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Joakim Aronius <joakim@aronius.com> wrote:
Excuse the newbie question: Why use public IP space for local CPE management and VoIP? Doesn't DOCSIS support traffic separation?
/J
Probably because rfc1918 is only 2^24+2^20+2^16 = 17,891,328 (assuming I got them all and my math is right.) That makes it tough to manage unique devices across a large deployment. -- Tim:> Sent from Brooklyn, NY, United States
Typically the CPE address is private, not sure why they would use a public IP. The MTA (VoIP) part of the modem would need a public IP if it was talking to a SIP server that was not on the same network. Most smaller cable system outsource their VoIP to a reseller with a softswitch. ---- ---- ---- ---- Chris Gotstein, Sr Network Engineer, UP Logon/Computer Connection UP http://uplogon.com | +1 906 774 4847 | chris@uplogon.com On 1/28/2010 7:44 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Paul Stewart (pstewart@nexicomgroup.net) wrote:
That really makes sense - on an incredibly smaller scale (and I mean MUCH smaller scale), we operate cable modem in two small communities - currently we use 3 IP addresses per subscriber. One for the cable modem itself, one for the subscriber (or more depending on their package), and one for voice delivery (packetcable). If we moved even two of three IP assignments to native V6 we'd reclaim a lot of V4 space - I can only imagine someone their size and what this means...
Paul
Excuse the newbie question: Why use public IP space for local CPE management and VoIP? Doesn't DOCSIS support traffic separation?
/J
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Chris Gotstein <chris@uplogon.com> wrote:
Typically the CPE address is private, not sure why they would use a public IP. The MTA (VoIP) part of the modem would need a public IP if it was talking to a SIP server that was not on the same network. Most smaller cable system outsource their VoIP to a reseller with a softswitch.
It's not necessarily "public", just globally unique. Some companies have more than 17,891,328 devices they want to manage in a centralized fashion. -- Tim:>
-----Original Message----- From: Richard Barnes [mailto:richard.barnes@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 07:47 To: Kevin Oberman Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
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).
++1, reference: http://www.apricot.net/apricot2006/slides/conf/wednesday/Alain_Durand-Archit ecture-external.ppt /TJ
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
John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Folks,
I am emailing you today to share some news that we hope you will find interesting.
Today we are announcing our 2010 IPv6 trial plans. For more information please visit the following web site:
I was privileged enough to visit the Comcast DOCSIS3/IPv6 implementation demo setup at nanog46 in Philly last year, here are some pics I managed to snap: http://www.convergence.cx/cgi-bin/photview.cgi?collection=comcast6&newformat=yay Apologies for the lack of descriptions, but from what I recall, there was a CMTS setup with DOCSIS3 CMs and Laptops attached, streaming media over IPv6. Dave.
participants (23)
-
Bill Fehring -
Cameron Byrne -
Chris Gotstein -
David Freedman -
George Bonser -
Joakim Aronius -
Joe Hamelin -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Jason Brzozowski -
Kevin Oberman -
nick hatch -
Paul Stewart -
Richard Barnes -
Scott Berkman -
Seth Mattinen -
steve pirk [egrep] -
Steven Bellovin -
Tim Durack -
TJ -
Tony Varriale -
tvest＠eyeconomics.com -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William McCall