dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2861
share rss forum feed


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to 34764170

Re: IPV6

said by 34764170:

said by swintec:

The end ISP user does not care about that. What is something that Joe Schmo is going to be able to do when he gets it that he cant do now? The only reason I want IPv6 right now from TW is for the novelty effect to tinker with.

I don't care if you don't value the additional address space but there are plenty of people who do and they want v6 for more than just to "tinker with".

Okay and why is that? Why does a meaningful (read: significant) amount of residential users (my and your neighbors, families and friends) need IPv6? Why should an ISP rush this "feature" out to its residential customer base over something that markets and sells better like speed upgrades and TV features?
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


Suit Up

join:2003-07-21
Los Angeles, CA

1 recommendation

said by swintec:

Why should an ISP rush this "feature" out to its residential customer base over something that markets and sells better like speed upgrades and TV features?

Because they can now assign a static IP block to everyone and thus reduce their overhead for all the John Doe requests they get from the piracy lawsuits. Thus saving them monies.

That's a joke btw, as it's really a silly question. IPv6 isn't a feature that's marketable, it's something that is designed to be a transparent change for the end user, yet enable the continued growth of the internet. If ISPs, network backbones, and equipment manufacturers had listened to the people who were telling them to prepare for the change over 10 years ago, they wouldn't have to rush it. But instead they all rested on their laurels more concerned about their current bottom line than being prepared for the future and now all of a sudden they do have to "rush" it...

mind21_98

join:2006-05-13
San Diego, CA

1 recommendation

said by Suit Up:

But instead they all rested on their laurels more concerned about their current bottom line than being prepared for the future and now all of a sudden they do have to "rush" it...

Yep. I still think they're going to roll out cgNAT before they roll out IPv6, but we'll see.


TelecomEng

@rr.com
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

On the edge access side with cable for example Cisco is pretty far behind the curve compared to some of the other CMTS vendors.

Actually, quite the opposite, in my experience. Cisco has been the most proactive in getting to full v6 compliance in their CMTS code. Other vendors, Arris for example, have been less adept at their v6 code. Supposedly this has changed with more recent code and Arris is catching up.


TelecomEng

@rr.com
reply to mind21_98

said by mind21_98:

Yep. I still think they're going to roll out cgNAT before they roll out IPv6, but we'll see.

You're likely to see them rolled out side-by-side. CGN will be used to support those folks with outdated and functional v4 routers and devices who don't upgrade for v6 capabilities.


whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to swintec

said by swintec:

Okay and why is that? Why does a meaningful (read: significant) amount of residential users (my and your neighbors, families and friends) need IPv6? Why should an ISP rush this "feature" out to its residential customer base over something that markets and sells better like speed upgrades and TV features?

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Users don't care that v6 brings PMTUD which will allow us to use jumbo frames across the internet. They don't care about openness and end-to-end connectivity of the internet.

The average (not you or I) internet user just wants things to work.

We need to look what will fail if a user does not have IPv6:

1. P2P File transfers via many chat programs (including irc and jabber). User has a v6 address, sends to v4 user.

2. Breakage due to carrier grade NAT. 2013 is going to be the year of IPv6. 2014 is the year of CGN. Geoff Huston has some good stats on why Teredo is so fail. Most of it has to do with instances where there are multiple layers of NATs.

3. Inability to access websites. There are IPv6 only sites out there already. As the price of IPv4 increases, there will be an increase of IPv6 only sites. (eg. try and get to »bin6.it , it'll work if you have teredo). Think a person who gets a $15 VPS will pay $10/mo for an IPv4 address?


Aliens
Premium
join:2002-10-09
space-time

1 recommendation

reply to zaxcom

I just posted a separate thread so as not to hijack this one or any other. I succeeded today in getting IPV6 / IPV4 dual-stack internet service working on a Time Warner connection in San Antonio, TX using a Arris TG852G modem and Windows 7 PCs. Details in that post.