Scott Helms <khe...@ispalliance.net> writes: > 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
Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT. -r
