[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...



In message <C02476CE-0544-430E-BB70-B752406AD3A8 at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> 
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> >=20
> > In message <1DBDCA5F-16EC-428D-BC46-3BD59A6F4CDB at delong.com>, Owen =
> DeLong write
> > s:
> >>>=20
> >>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
> >>> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
> >>> code.  This should be minimal.  A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
> >>> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
> >>=20
> >> Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
> >> having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
> >> to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
> >> replacing the CPE cheaper.
> >=20
> > It depends on the CPE device.  Lots of CPE devices can be re-flashed
> > in place.  It just requires the will to make the images available.
> >=20
> Who do you think is going to do this reflashing? If you think that =
> Grandma
> is going to download an image and reflash her linksys, you're at least
> slightly divorced from reality.

I think grandma is quite capable of doing it.  She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done.  Most people that are scared
of doing it themselves have someone that they can call on to do it
for them.  It also doesn't have to be 100%.

> If you think she's going to do it and not have about a 10% brick rate
> (10% of devices going from router to brick) as a result, then, you're
> optimistic to say the least.

Reflashing with manufacture supplied images doesn't have a 10% brick
rate.

> >>> It can be deployed incrementally.
> >>>=20
> >> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
> >> alternative for many providers.
> >=20
> > And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.
> >=20
> 
> 
> On this we agree...
> 
> Which is why we should decide to move to IPv6 and get on with it instead
> of continuing to pursue rat-holes like 240/4.

240/4 is actually an enabler for IPv6.  It allows the operator to
give the customer a stable IPv4 address which can be used for stable
IPv6 addresses via 6rd.

Different parts upgrade at different times and we need to de-couple
all those upgrades if we can.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org