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 IPv6
for a number of years because the cost is much lower and according to
the vendors selling CGNAT solutions the impact to end users is (almost)
unnoticeable.
On 2/9/2011 1:46 PM, Stephens, Josh wrote:
Not something I'd typically use this list for but I have an opportunity to host
a debate of sorts on IPv6 where I'm taking a very pro IPv6 stance and I need
someone who wants to argue the other side - effectively that most people don't
need to worry about it for a long time still or until someone makes them.
Any takers feel free to ping me directly...
Thanks,
Josh
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
