North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted

  • From: Jared Mauch
  • Date: Wed May 30 16:10:51 2007

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:40:00PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > This is a grand game of chicken. The ISPs are refusing to move first due to
> > lack of content
> 
> pure bs.  most significant backbones are dual stack.  you are the
> chicken, claiming the sky is falling.

	I'd have to say I agree.  Even those networks that are
saddled with lots of legacy gear are coming up with creative ways
to deploy it (eg: 6PE).

	GX, FT, NTT(was verio), and lots of other carriers have IPv6
capabilities and the ability to deliver them in a global fashion.

	I'm leaving out a lot of folks i know, but the case in my mind
is a lack of sufficent push or pull to create the required intertia to
move things.

	Push -- ie: US Federal purchasing mandate impacts a small number
of folks who can decipher the FAR.
	Pull -- user demand for their ipv6 pr0n.

	The same has been true of other "failed" or "niche" technologies
such as multicast and IPv6.  There are a lot of enterprises and NSPs that
have solved these issues within their domain and they've scaled [so far].

	I'd say that if your provider can't give you a reasonable answer
on a date for some form of IPv6 support (even experimental, free,
tunneled or otherwise) you will run into issues with them up to some point.

	I am a bit sympathetic to those that have to wait for stuff
like upgraded DOCSIS and otherwise from their provider if they have
the usual one or two providers at your home, but at the same time
applying some pressure to them will help get a good deployment and may
get you in on their beta or something else.

	- jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.