[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
Scott Helms <khelms at ispalliance.net> writes:
> 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
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.