The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells
consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature
that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you
ANOTHER CPE to
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company
that sells consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why
release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could
do it later
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but
it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically
turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this
Mark Newton wrote:
Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck.
I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out
of the box.
Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6.
Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
Hi MMC,
You might want to contribute
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario. The
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
money off IPv4. We're already well into this state.
2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
other transition mechanisms in place.
Who has the other
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of
deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The
core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere,
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. The US
Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. The
only
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the
extra recurring support cost of having to work through two
stacks with every customer that dials in as being far
greater than any technology costs in either single-stack
scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer.
This
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be
running IPv4 in 20
years. A two decade transition period just does not fit
this industry's
history.
To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so
I changed the subject line.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2)
- 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) - 2) yet.
Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward.
The driver for 1-2 is
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is
actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have
shown). There are lots of bits
Wanted to thank all that replied. I am sending a few of you to my IT
people for consideration.
-Dennis
While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order.
AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will
be more heavily NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per
public v4 address. IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g.,
instead of multihoming
On Mar 13, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up
routing /32's globally.
No, that's what we have IPv6 for ('cause, you know, IPv6 /32s are
smaller than IPv4 /32s... or something...) :-)
Regards,
-drc
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote:
What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in
the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6.
Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to
deploy the
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Owen DeLong wrote:
While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order. AFAICS, the
impact will be that residential and similar usage will be more heavily
NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per public v4 address. IPv4
multihoming practises will evolve
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and
Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is
using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport
service not
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
IPv6.
There are already
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this posited -- I had a hard
Son of a biscuit, they took the commands out of my 7200's and 6500's.
You used to be able to just type ttcp and follow some prompts, I'm
not sure that Cisco ever really documented much of it though. I had
found it through DOTU back in the day.
Quoted from Cisco about this:
Note: The ttcp
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
Randy,
actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do
not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.
I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and
since that content is
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google
is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google
serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote:
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is
still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is
accessible via IPv6? I might suggest
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We
tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My
colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices
they have
The IPv6 support on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's
not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices.
But
it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan
to
tunnel to.
Pete
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired.
That workaround does not work on the models with the
-Original Message-
From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
I have an 877m (no wireless):
Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix.
All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just
peachy.
c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin
(Caveat: I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make
the LNS do what I
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Regards,
-drc
David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Looked at the manual, the
From: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean
Joel:
Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if
the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay? To be clear,
even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support? Standing from a distance,
I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the CMTS has to
39 matches
Mail list logo
