Richard Barnes wrote: > What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is > starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out > of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with >1 IP address (e.g., > for user data / control of the cable box).
What do you meaning starting, that happened years ago. 15 million ip subscribers, 6 million voice subscribers, 30 million cable tv subscribers... > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Kevin Oberman <ober...@es.net> wrote: >>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800 >>> From: "George Bonser" <gbon...@seven.com> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: William McCall >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials >>>> >>>> Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without >>>> going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving >>>> towards this trial? >>> >>> SWAG: Comcast is a mobile operator. At some point NAT becomes very >>> expensive for mobile devices and it makes sense to use IPv6 where you >>> don't need to do NAT. Once you deploy v6 on your mobile net, it is to >>> your advantage to have the stuff your mobile devices connect to also be >>> v6. Do do THAT your network needs to transport v6 and once your net is >>> ipv6 enabled, there is no reason not to leverage that capability to the >>> rest of your network. /SWAG >>> >>> My gut instinct says that mobile operators will be a major player in v6 >>> adoption. >> SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and >> Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far). >> -- >> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer >> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) >> Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) >> E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 >> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 >> >> >