Comcast Plans Residential IPv6 In 2010 - Trials to begin later this year...

Comcast Plans Residential IPv6 In 2010
Trials to begin later this year...
01:37PM Thursday Jun 18 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: business · networking · IPv6

"Comcast plans to enter into broadband IPv6 technical trials later this year and into 2010," TBarry Tishgart, VP of Internet Services for Comcast tells Internet News. "Planning for general deployment is underway." Despite the endless reports about how the United States was a gluttonous consumer of iPv4 addresses that would run out in 2011 or 2012, news on this front has been relatively quiet the last year given the sour economy. One Comcast insider in Michigan tells Broadband Reports the company is already testing some closed network routes of IPv6.

This week found Uncle Sam once again insisting that the migration to IPv6 was a priority as the government released its latest roadmap (pdf) to get us all safely to IPv6 -- sometime. The 4.3 billion current IP addresses will be running out sooner than later, and despite our disproportionate consumption of said addresses, we've been among the slower countries to do something about it. As many of you know IPv6 delivers nearly as many 128-bit IP addresses as there are stars in the sky.

Cringley on IPv6

Cisco: Average Connection Consumes 11.4 GB Per Month

Neutrality Rules Won't Impact Investment

The "Death Of P2P" Is Relative, Possibly Wrong

Metrocast Offers Fiber To The Home

Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction

Sandvine: P2P Now Just 20% Of Internet Use

AT&T: No, We Didn't Misconfigure Our 3G Network

Forums » Comcast Plans Residential IPv6 In 2010


	view: topics flat text	Post a:

vpoko Premium join:2003-07-03 Jamaica Plain, MA	It'll be a slow process But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 13:16:32 ·

modifiy join:2001-04-13 Minneapolis, MN	Re: It'll be a slow process No we wont. NAT has saved us from getting close to running out. 40% of IPv4 is still unused. We have a while before we even get close.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 14:39:16 ·

Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ	Re: It'll be a slow process we could reclaim a ton of IPv4 if a few select groups would give up their multiple unused blocks. dont some if the big corporations and Universities have a few million unused IPs that they gained the blocks for back when the net was being built and will never use. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
	permalink · 2009-06-18 14:49:54 ·

modifiy join:2001-04-13 Minneapolis, MN ·Qwest.net ·Comcast	Re: It'll be a slow process Yes. A lot of companies and Universities early to the game Got class A addresses. Most of them don't come close to using those spaces and most even use private IPs for most things. I'm sure if we really hit the wall with addressing it would come to a point where they would say give up your unused space.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 15:03:38 ·

battleop join:2005-09-28 00000	Re: It'll be a slow process Why does Ford need 19.0.0.0/8? There are a ton of other non network companies out there with /8 networks. I can at least see why Apple and IBM grabbed up /8 networks but neither of them use the networks for anything other than what 10.0.0.0/8 is intended for.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 16:13:38 ·

vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA

1 edit

said by modifiy

:

No we wont. NAT has saved us from getting close to running out. 40% of IPv4 is still unused. We have a while before we even get close.

NAT was never a good solution and isn't acceptable for whole classes of devices. Now, IPv4 gives us a little less than 4.3 billion (that's short billions for our non-US posters) IP addresses. According to the CIA World Factbook, the world population is 6.7 billion. Just wait until the developing world starts coming online. Not to mention the fact that tons of electronic devices that never needed IP that all of a sudden will (think TV's, media players, cell phones, video game consoles, smart fridges, etc), and it's not unreasonable to assume that the average person could need 3, 4, or more IP addresses. There is an EXPLOSIVE growth in IP address demand right around the corner, 40% of our IPv4 addresses being free right now won't mean a thing.

permalink · 2009-06-18 15:08:29 · Print ·

modifiy

join:2001-04-13
Minneapolis, MN

·Qwest.net

·Comcast

Re: It'll be a slow process

I disagree. NAT was a very good solution. If it wasn't for this solution we wouldn't be talking about going to IPv6 chances are we would already be there or much further in the process. NAT absolutely change the ip addressing game. They said we would run out of addresses in/before 2000 and we are still have about 40% free.

Right now there are roughly 1.5 billion online in the world. There are defiantly more devices then humans online by that count. I agree it's not unreasonable for the average Joe to need 3+ online devices, but its also unreasonable to think that each one of those devices will need it's own public IP address. Most things work fine with private ip and NAT.

Yes we will run out of addresses at some point, but it has and will take longer than what people think.

permalink · 2009-06-18 15:45:38 · Print ·

Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA

Every device in a single household, MOST devices you mentioned soon needing an IP can be Natted..seriously where do people come up wit this stuff? The problem is as stated /8 blocks unused and being sat on for no good reason. Think about it. EVERY household could have ONE ip and NAT ALL HOUSEHOLD DEVICES...Even WIRELESS CARRIERS could NAT. CABLE companies do on the C0 int....
--
»davescustompc.com

permalink · 2009-06-18 16:22:55 ·

vpoko Premium join:2003-07-03 Jamaica Plain, MA	Re: It'll be a slow process Oh yeah, I love not being able to run servers because of NAT. No thanks, NAT was always a temporary solution that handicapped access to the internet, and I for one am glad it won't be part of IPv6.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 16:26:51 ·

Hangmn Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable Premium join:2000-04-08 Philadelphia, PA 1 edit	Re: It'll be a slow process Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP. -- »davescustompc.com
	permalink · 2009-06-18 16:28:57 ·

vpoko Premium join:2003-07-03 Jamaica Plain, MA	Re: It'll be a slow process said by Hangmn : Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP. Fair enough.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 16:46:30 ·

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

said by Hangmn

:

Thats just it YOU CAN run servers because of PAT, NAT's brother....see? I run servers..just fine behind my IP.

The average household, which may now see up to 4 or more computers in a house running multiple torrents, games, voip, etc. could easily bring any consumer level router to its knees with PAT.

Likewise, any large scale corporation with 100-1000 computers minimal, would run out of ports VERY VERY quickly.

NAT has its advantages for local based networking. Ports which need to go out can be routed just fine; additional IPs do help when you have more than one device that needs to respond to public port 80 request.

NAT, however, is a handicap solution. It was meant to stifle growth of IPv4 usage (which it admittedly did) and it gave end users an opportunity easily implement their own home networks.

Certainly helped many corporations and universities as well who certainly saw no problem consuming their 10.0.0.0 blocks, which is probably half the problem: They saw NAT as a solution and didn't cough up their unused IPs. Therefore, you've got thousands of IPs in use by single entities perpetually going to waste.

IPv6 offers an extremely wide array advantages over IPv4 and NAT or PAT, especially considering the fact it would certainly lighten the load on any consumer level router and the simple fact that it would not suffer the same limitation of PAT and NAT in that no port forwarding would be required.

Now not to say IPv4 should be entirely eliminated. Definitely not. I can't begin to imagine what would happen if someone suggested even the thought of such. IPv4 will still be necessary as 90% (more likely 99%) of consumer devices don't even support IPv6. Hell, even pfSense doesn't offer native support for it nor does DD-WRT on most devices it supports. Tomato is practically a niche market compared to DD-WRT. OpenWRT and such are even less of a market. The simple fact is that an IPv6 switchover needs to be coordinated and handled, certainly a lot better than the DTV switch over at that.

For example: As was with the DTV switch over, devices not supporting IPv6 out the box need to be clearly labeled. Consumers need to be made aware of what IPv6 is and its contrast to IPv4. 90% of the people on this mass of land called the USA won't even know what IPv4 is, where there in your problem will lie. Those same 90% and then some will have older routers that will not support IPv6, where in one of two things will need to happen: A mandate for all current market level devices to be updated with IPv6 support (yeah, government interfering in private company matters, blah blah blah), and a mandate that all future devices support IPv6.

Another reason IPv4 will need to remain available to all is the simple fact that many consumers can't use IPv6 since their applications don't support it. I've seen thousands of people playing older games or using older software that have no chance of ever seeing an update to support IPv6. That is unfortunately just the way the market works.

It is for the reasons outlined above in regards to both hardware and software that people simply will need to have both IPv6 and IPv4 available to them.

permalink · 2009-06-19 09:48:59 · Print ·

wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK

·Future Nine Corpor..

·Teliax VOIP

said by Hangmn

:

Every device in a single household, MOST devices you mentioned soon needing an IP can be Natted..seriously where do people come up wit this stuff? The problem is as stated /8 blocks unused and being sat on for no good reason. Think about it. EVERY household could have ONE ip and NAT ALL HOUSEHOLD DEVICES...Even WIRELESS CARRIERS could NAT. CABLE companies do on the C0 int....

No, the problem isn't the unused /8s at all. There aren't that many sitting around unused to be reclaimed. We go through a whole /8 every few months at this point. Forcibly reclaiming them would buy us a year or two at best.

NAT is terrible. It breaks or makes more difficult everything from VoIP to gaming to p2p to home automation. It's a crappy solution that never should have been and should have outlived its usefulness about 5 years ago when ISPs should have already moved to IPv6.

v4 is history whether you or anybody else likes it or not. Even the big operators have finally gotten on board. It's just a matter of time now.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.

permalink · 2009-06-19 07:31:47 · Print ·

Hangmn Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable Premium join:2000-04-08 Philadelphia, PA	Re: It'll be a slow process I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math. -- »davescustompc.com
	permalink · 2009-06-19 09:09:30 ·

vpoko Premium join:2003-07-03 Jamaica Plain, MA	Re: It'll be a slow process said by Hangmn : I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math. It's going to probably take those 10 years to get everyone over to IPv6.
	permalink · 2009-06-19 09:13:28 ·

wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK

·Future Nine Corpor..

·Teliax VOIP

said by Hangmn

:

I understand the need for IPV6 fully. I do however disagree whole heartedly with impending Doom scenarios. We COULD buy AT LEAST 10 years if we reclaimed all the sat up IPV4 addresses being held hostage..its just simple math.

No, simple math tells us we can't. At the current rate of usage the free pool will be exhausted in one to two years. Reclaiming all /8s would give us perhaps one more year. There are currently 47 remaining unallocated /8s. If those will be allocated in two years, as the best estimates indicate, what good will reclaiming all of the 37ish legacy /8 allocations (most of which are in use, mind you!) do us? Buy us another year?

That makes about as much sense as delaying the DTV transition did.

Your estimate is off by nearly an order of magnitude. Perhaps you should not talk of simple math when you cannot perform simple math yourself?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.

permalink · 2009-06-19 09:29:15 · Print ·

Hangmn Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable Premium join:2000-04-08 Philadelphia, PA	Re: It'll be a slow process I simply disagree, I STILL come across networks where EVERY device has a ROUTABLE IP instread of a natted address. Please there are Admins out there, apparently you as well, who do not understand 1 to many.... -- »davescustompc.com
	permalink · 2009-06-19 09:46:26 ·

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by vpoko

:

Not to mention the fact that tons of electronic devices that never needed IP that all of a sudden will (think TV's, media players, cell phones, video game consoles, smart fridges, etc), and it's not unreasonable to assume that the average person could need 3, 4, or more IP addresses.

I am currently using 12 IP addresses; however, I really only need 2 publicly routeable IP addresses. Not really sure I'd like the NAS, or HR-21 on the public Internet.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

permalink · 2009-06-19 06:48:35 · Print ·

wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK

·Future Nine Corpor..

·Teliax VOIP

Re: It'll be a slow process

said by NormanS

:

Not really sure I'd like the NAS, or HR-21 on the public Internet.

That's what a firewall is for.

The nice thing about that is then the device can easily and without conflicting with other devices open the ports it needs using UPnP. Currently if you have two devices that need the same port you're SOL if you have the usual single dynamic address.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.

permalink · 2009-06-19 07:34:12 · Print ·

bn1221 join:2009-04-29 Cortland, NY	Why does my phone need a non 10 or non 192 address For that matter my dumb devices on my Cell or Wimax could use IP6 since I never see the Ips on them anyway....
	permalink · 2009-06-19 09:57:54 ·

wierdo join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK ·Future Nine Corpor.. ·Teliax VOIP	Re: It'll be a slow process said by bn1221 : Why does my phone need a non 10 or non 192 address Perhaps so your mail server can connect to it and tell it that it has new mail, amongst other things. -- It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.
	permalink · 2009-06-19 10:13:22 · Print ·

PGHammer

join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:

·Comcast

Phones (not just smartphones) have been Web-capable (in the US, and elsewhere) for years. I have the Samsung SCH-a610 (which I bought as a PAYG phone from VZW in 2005); it was Web-capable when I bought it, and it was FAR from being the first Web-capable phone. Also, if you are going to NAT a phone, where do you put the router? At the tower (where it's carrier-controlled)? In the home? (T-Mobile is trying that; how well is it working in terms of phones and capable routers?) If a device will surf the Web (or communicate via the Internet) it needs either NAT or a routable public IP. NAT is a kludge (elegant, but still a kludge), and it does not take certain things into account by design (in short, there are certain things that NAT is specifically designed NOT to allow). As more devices need public/routable IP addresses (mostly because NAT for such devices is not workable/practical), the IPv4 address shortfall will simply become more obvious.

permalink · 2009-06-19 15:24:55 · Print ·

maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

·RoadRunner Cable

said by vpoko

:

But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon.

Actually, the U.S.A. has about 40% of the worlds IP addresses, and we as a country have plenty of IPv4 addresses for the next 50+ years.

There are many other countries, ESPECIALLY in Asia and Africa, which are now emerging internet markets that will have problems. There are quite a few ISP's already that are IPv6 ready in China, Japan, South Korea.

At some point however, we will need to convert over to IPv6. But the world isn't going to end in the U.S. if it takes us another 10 years or more.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

permalink · 2009-06-18 17:48:55 · Print ·

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Re: It'll be a slow process

said by maartena

said by vpoko

:

But it's got to get going, we WILL run out of IPv4 addresses real soon.

50 Years? At the rate at which everyone wants their own blog? You've gotta be kidding.

permalink · 2009-06-19 09:49:46 · Print ·

wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK

·Future Nine Corpor..

·Teliax VOIP

said by maartena

:

Actually, the U.S.A. has about 40% of the worlds IP addresses, and we as a country have plenty of IPv4 addresses for the next 50+ years.

ARIN has less than a year's supply of addresses. Luckily IANA has not yet run out.

If you are talking about reclaiming addresses, that's a legal minefield, not to mention a technical one. There is a finite limit to the size of the routing table the Internet's backbone routers can handle. Without significant renumbering, which would end up being just as painful as a switch to IPv6, the routers would fall over.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.

permalink · 2009-06-19 10:16:05 · Print ·

u3912974 join:2007-07-31 San Francisco, CA	i agree. start it now
	permalink · 2009-06-18 19:46:49 ·

Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ	the main fear i have is ISPs not giving up their current 1 IP per home habits. if we have to pay for each computer then IPv6 will have a very rough deployment. but if IPv6 is as big as they claim each house could in theory have 15 or so each without a problem even on an ISP as large as Comcast. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
	permalink · 2009-06-19 08:15:27 ·

PapaMidnight join:2009-01-13 Baltimore, MD	Re: It'll be a slow process said by Kearnstd : but if IPv6 is as big as they claim each house could in theory have 15 or so each without a problem even on an ISP as large as Comcast. That is the general idea.
	permalink · 2009-06-19 09:50:25 ·

yolarry join:2007-12-29 Creston, WV	Cool Gotta keep our internet going and going like the energizer bunny.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 13:23:51 ·

jmn1207 Premium join:2000-07-19 Reston, VA	Router Upgrades? Will this have any impact on existing IPv4 home routers? Would an IPv6 capable router be required for your home network, or is this change backward compatible with existing equipment?
	permalink · 2009-06-18 13:29:28 ·

alphapointe Premium,MVM join:2002-02-10 Columbia, MO clubs:	Re: Router Upgrades? They'll at least have to replace and/or update CPE devices (modems, etc) to allow for ipv6 WAN addresses. I'm sure you can have IPv4 on the LAN side if necessary.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 13:44:41 ·

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: Router Upgrades?

said by alphapointe

:

They'll at least have to replace and/or update CPE devices (modems, etc) to allow for ipv6 WAN addresses. I'm sure you can have IPv4 on the LAN side if necessary.

DOCSIS3 Modems come with IPv6 support. As for DOCSIS2 Modems, there is DOCSIS2 IPv6 support if the Cable Company pushes the Microcode to the Modem - See the info at »www.cablemodem.com/specification···s20.html.

permalink · 2009-06-18 14:42:06 · Print ·

k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

said by jmn1207

:

Will this have any impact on existing IPv4 home routers? Would an IPv6 capable router be required for your home network, or is this change backward compatible with existing equipment?

The funny part is that you probably will. Even though a firmware flash can add IPv6 functionality, the manufactures probably wont release an update. The "residential" class routers are a POS and most only support IPv4. I will never admin a network with a residential router because they are buggy and whenever I tried to use one they never worked right. Even business class routers bog down on me.
Once I started using DD-WRT, I haven't had a network problem since. I will only buy Linksys WRT54GL routers (at least until I can find another router that is fully compatible with DD-WRT).

permalink · 2009-06-18 15:03:09 · Print ·

See 16 replies to this post

rahlquist Redeye join:2001-10-30 Villa Rica, GA	You gotta say no matter how much you hate comcast this is very welcome and good news.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 13:44:26 ·

mcnet

join:2005-12-19
Cary, IL

Dual-stack IPv4/IPv6

CPE/cable modem should pass thru IPv6 traffic just fine, it's the router/firewall that needs dual stack support during this transition period. hope to be able to switch to native dual-stack mode soon.

linksys/netgear/dlink/2wire (consumer) routers don't do IPv6 with normal code that i'm aware of. but newer corporate cisco routers and firewalls support dual-stack mode, as well as some of the open source openwrt type projects.

permalink · 2009-06-18 13:58:02 ·

See 8 replies to this post

MichaelWacey
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

·Verizon FIOS

·Comcast

This would almost make me switch from FiOS

Hopefully, we will see something from Verizon on IPv6 support soon.

It will be interesting to see how they roll this out. Some possible scenarios:

-Switch by areas and require IPv6 routers in all homes. IPv6 to IPv4 is done by Comcast Edge routers. Not very likely.

-Switch by region and support both IPv6 and IPv4. To use IPv6, you will need an IPv6 router. IPv6 to IPv4 would be done on Comcast routers based on where service is available.

However they do it, I would be happy if I could use IPv6 on my router and all my computers. But, then again does the XBOX, the WII, or the IPod Touch support IPv6? This could be complicated.

permalink · 2009-06-18 14:06:26 · Print ·

jmn1207 Premium join:2000-07-19 Reston, VA ·Verizon FIOS	Re: This would almost make me switch from FiOS I see a potential market for an inexpensive and efficient translation device to be used as an interim fix until the update progress to IPv6 matures. My next home router is probably going cost me $300 or more, and I probably will want to continue using a switch for my living room to minimize the number of cables being run. My wallet hates technology.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 14:16:08 ·

hwobu

join:2009-02-08
Arlington, VA

Re: This would almost make me switch from FiOS

said by jmn1207

:

I see a potential market for an inexpensive and efficient translation device to be used as an interim fix until the update progress to IPv6 matures. My next home router is probably going cost me $300 or more, and I probably will want to continue using a switch for my living room to minimize the number of cables being run. My wallet hates technology.

As an IPv4/IPv6 dual stack router, I've been using the Linksys (now Cisco small business) WRVS4400N and it's been working wonderfully for me, though I don't use the wireless on the router b/c it doesn't work in the 5Ghz frequency range (only 2.4). So if you're not going to use the router's wireless functionality, then the RVS4000 may be more appropriate.

Before switching to Comcast, I would average around 3 petabytes (that's 1024 terabytes per petabyte) before needing to power cycle the router, though that was before moving the dhcp functions to my server (I had some additional DHCP options I wanted on the leases).

permalink · 2009-08-25 21:00:02 · Print ·

NOCMan Verizon Fios User Premium join:2004-09-30 Flower Mound, TX	It will be a hack at first I doubt customers will be using ipv6, however new CPE would be provided that does IPv4 to IPv6 NAT addressing. I'm sure that's how it's going to start, otherwise imagine asking the customer to ping their default gateway. -- Play a Death Knight? www.theebonhold.com
	permalink · 2009-06-18 14:09:55 ·

SLD Premium join:2002-04-17 2 edits	Am I? Am I the only one who hates IPv6? A "higher version number" isn't always better. Good luck memorizing the IPs you manage, and much equipment functions poorly under this scheme.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 14:27:01 ·

See 26 replies to this post

NickD Premium join:2000-11-17 Princeton Junction, NJ clubs:	We all know those Concast techs' reputation Wonder how many houses they'll set fire to replacing every cable modem.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 14:52:14 ·

hwobu join:2009-02-08 Arlington, VA	Re: We all know those Concast techs' reputation said by NickD : Wonder how many houses they'll set fire to replacing every cable modem. So that's where they got their ideas for their anti-fios commercials, their own technician's lousy work.
	permalink · 2009-08-25 21:03:15 ·

Joe12345678 join:2003-07-22 Des Plaines, IL	will you have have to pay $2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo will you have have to pay $2 - $5 /m per ip + a comcast ipv6 modem rent? Will they let you use nat and only pay for 1 ip?
	permalink · 2009-06-18 15:28:51 ·

neufuse join:2006-12-06 Indiana, PA	Re: will you have have to pay $2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo I'd assume they'd sell you a whole internal block... they only lease out the first 64bits of it or something...
	permalink · 2009-06-18 16:29:29 ·

cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

until you back up your WILD claim of '$2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo' i'll call it FUD. with the shear number of IP addresses that IPv6 provides, i don't see a reason why they would charge money for having multiple ip addresses or static addresses. IPv6 has a mind numbingly large number of addresses, being up tight about them is just silly along with charging to have multiple/static. I'd artificially limit residential to a couple hundred, as most residential networks are still under 10 internal addresses used.

permalink · 2009-06-18 18:21:44 · Print ·

TheMG join:2007-09-04 Edmonton, AB ·TELUS ·TekSavvy Solutions..	Re: will you have have to pay $2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo said by cornelius785 : i don't see a reason why they would charge money for having multiple ip addresses or static addresses. IMO I think they (and most other ISPs) will keep charging money for static IP addresses, even with IPv6. Why? Because they can.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 21:12:53 ·

maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

·RoadRunner Cable

There are soooo many IPv6 addresses available, that we could literary assign about a BILLION IPv6 addresses to each individual on earth, and still have so many addresses left to hook up about a 100 alien planets with similar populations as earth, and give all of THEM each a billion IP addresses.

To put it in numbers, there are:

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

combinations possible with IPv6.

As for reality: I saw an article some time ago of a Dutch ISP offering IPv6 connections already, and supplying 4096 IP addresses with it, and not costing much more (if any more cost at all) than a regular DSL connection.

Once ISP's go IPv6, you probably get a few thousand addresses for free, for you to use however you please.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

permalink · 2009-06-18 20:09:05 · Print ·

axiomatic join:2006-08-23 Tomball, TX	IPV6 I sure bet the RIAA and MPAA can't wait until we all have unique IPs. That should make us slightly more sue-able. Not perfect though.. they still have to prove it was you sitting at the PC... but it would defiantly make it a little easier on their crusade of banality.
	permalink · 2009-06-18 17:52:10 ·

Mike Wolf join:2009-05-24 Beachwood, NJ	Thoughtful thinking I need to wonder "will consumer routers with IPv4 only capabilities be able to be used, able to accept IPv6 addresses? And what about Docsis 1.x and Docsis 2.0 modems, are they capable of receiving an IPv6 address?" Link to IPv6 thread: »Comcast deployed IPv6 yet?
	permalink · 2009-06-19 03:51:59 ·

SiliconBandt join:2008-05-24 Winnipeg, MB	Re: Thoughtful thinking D1's no, D2's should be able to. D1's also can't handle the higher end speeds anyways so I find it unlikely too many will be in service at that time as far as Comcast and the other major providers go.
	permalink · 2009-06-19 09:01:46 ·

Mike Wolf join:2009-05-24 Beachwood, NJ	Re: Thoughtful thinking True, but as seen on these forums, alot of people simply refuse to retire their D1.x modems, fighting it tooth and nail.
	permalink · 2009-06-19 23:13:52 ·

none at all

@senescomarine.com

i have a idea

i have a idea im sure the isp's are all thinking of just how to get more money from the internet

so heres the plan

buy up whats left of the ipv4 ips

right following me

make it so that theres few if any left now heres the plan

supply and demand no supply and high demand

so now when you get internet from ya isp
they charge the 69.99$ what ever the hell it is
then start tacking on the fees

connection fee
ipv4 lease fee 10$
ipv4 lease renewal fee renews 1 a day fee 1$ this is so they can net another 30$ month
you want ipv6 cross over to ipv6 networks going to cost you $$$

fee to manage the fees .87$
paper billing fee 2$
mailing fee cost of stamp +1%

dont forget cap fees
want torrents unblocked fee 15$
pay off to the **AA 20$ this does not stop or block a law suit

network upgrade fee 5$
line mantinece fee 5$

add what you want here

permalink · 2009-06-19 10:04:23 · Print ·

OCP Premium join:2004-10-11 USA	Very good news This can be very good news. I hope they can make the cable modems bridge the protocols. Otherwise a lot of people are going to be buying new gear. Not everything I have is IPv6-able.
	permalink · 2009-06-19 20:05:06 ·

geonap lolatidiots join:2005-12-14 Glendale, CA	ford.. if ford was giving each sold car an ip, it'd use a class C a year!
	permalink · 2009-06-20 12:25:38 ·

hwobu join:2009-02-08 Arlington, VA	Re: ford.. said by geonap : if ford was giving each sold car an ip, it'd use a class C a year! Um, yea, a class C is only 256 addresses (254 usable if applied to the interfaces... excludes net and broadcast). I'm VERY certain that Ford motors sells more than 256 cars a year....
	permalink · 2009-08-25 21:12:11 ·

massysett join:2006-01-04 Silver Spring, MD	Despite? Summary says "despite" the U.S. huge consumption of IPv4 addresses, we are not moving to IPv6. Despite? There's no urgency in the U.S. BECAUSE OF the huge consumption of IPv4 addresses, not despite it. Address shortage is much worse in other parts of the world. The U.S. has hoarded them.
	permalink · 2009-06-21 10:03:55 ·

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland

·ooma

·Future Nine Corpor..

·Comcast

I like NAT, I like my router, I like IPv4.

While I realize IPv6 is in my eventual future. IPv4 has been fine for my home for many years. We currently have over 30 devices and will be adding 5 new devices shortly (5 Palm Pre's in the near future).

4 24x7 VOIP connections are handled by my router with 1 IP. We share printers, surf, play music, run video consoles (Xbox, PS3, Wii) even iPods and iPhones all on a single IPv4 without any problem.

I'll be sad to see IPv4 go. Somehow routing will be necessary between IPv6 and my many IPv4 devices, if it doesn't exist, then IPv6 will be something I'll resist for as long as possible.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

permalink · 2009-06-21 19:28:14 · Print ·

ColateralDMG

join:2005-06-13
Mcdonough, GA

Transparent IPv4 to IPv6

I wonder if with IPv6 compatible routers they will just transparently do IPv4 to IPv6. They could leave the LAN side IPv4 for computability of older hardware. The router just transparently uses one of the IPv6 IPs and attaches it to a mac address for internet access. Then you wouldn't have the headaches of IPv6 and your XBox or what ever else. The only problem would be direct connection to your IP, say you open a ftp for a friend to view some photos, in that case you would need to point them to an IPv6 address.
Though now that I think about it this would only work if you had IPv6 and what ever you where connecting to had an address your XBox could understand. So this may only work if you have IPv6 and someone else had IPv4. I still don't see any reason not to give things on your lan two IPs one IPv6 and the other IPv4.

permalink · 2009-06-22 05:16:49 · Print ·

SiliconBandt join:2008-05-24 Winnipeg, MB	Growth pains I seem to remember bridging being discussed in one of the RFC's about network addressing, but now Im blasted if I can find it lol. For those interested, you should be able to search it at: »www.rfc-editor.org But yea, I can see that being the case. Like anything else its gonna be a rough transition.
	permalink · 2009-06-26 13:23:44 ·

your comment..

Forums » Comcast Plans Residential IPv6 In 2010


Sunday, 08-Nov 02:04:14	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole

It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Re: It'll be a slow process

Cool

Router Upgrades?

Re: Router Upgrades?

Re: Router Upgrades?

You gotta say

Dual-stack IPv4/IPv6

This would almost make me switch from FiOS

Re: This would almost make me switch from FiOS

Re: This would almost make me switch from FiOS

It will be a hack at first

Am I?

We all know those Concast techs' reputation

Re: We all know those Concast techs' reputation

will you have have to pay $2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo

Re: will you have have to pay $2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo

Re: will you have have to pay $2 - $5 per ip + a comcast ipv6 mo

IPV6

Thoughtful thinking

Re: Thoughtful thinking

Re: Thoughtful thinking

i have a idea

Very good news

ford..

Re: ford..

Despite?

I like NAT, I like my router, I like IPv4.

Transparent IPv4 to IPv6

Growth pains