> From: tv...@eyeconomics.com > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:34:52 -0500 > > On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:07 AM, TJ wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: tv...@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tv...@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: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
