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 <ober...@es.net> wrote: >> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800 >> From: "George Bonser" <gbon...@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: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > >
