nanog mailing list archives

Re: Looking for comments


From: Franck Martin <franck () genius com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:22:52 +1200 (FJT)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Smith" <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick () foobar org>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org>, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter () gmail com>
Sent: Friday, 23 July, 2010 12:17:21 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for comments
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +0100
Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:

On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients,
to simplify
them), the document doesn't place them as first preference
solutions.
However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find
themselves
more or less forced into these scenarios by IPv4 exhaustion.

Some of the extremely large operators have found themselves having
to
deploy ipv6 extensively in order to manage CPE devices and their
infrastructure networks. However, I'm not aware of any large
provider
which is deploying ipv6-only customer access products, either due to
a
shortage of ipv4 space or any other reason. If you can supply names
of
providers doing this, I'd be very interested to hear.


Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6
customer".

"IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3795086/IPv6-The-Future-of-IPTV.htm

In the USA too, see netflix


Current thread: