> I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If > there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out?
Well, when we surveyed 31 ISPs for draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios, we found "When asked which types of equipment are unable to support IPv6, the most common answer was CPE (10 mentions)." That doesn't directly answer your question, but it suggests the size of the problem. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2010-10-08 02:53, Yiu L. Lee wrote: > Hi Ole, > > I agree with you the host model isn't very attractive for average users. If > IPv4 can get me to every site, why I want to install a software to bring me > to the same set of sites over v6? 6rd is great tech, users don't need to do > anything. The only drawback is users will have to change the CPE. For some > operators, this may be a hurdle. > > I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If > there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out? > > Thanks, > Yiu > > > On 10/7/10 9:45 AM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> This is an interesting idea, but I will argue this is as complex as L2TP >>>> softwire. When Brian, Remi and I discussed, we would like to have a simple >>>> and cost effective technology that could be deployed by SP w/o upgrading >>>> the >>>> CPE. >>> Indeed. >>> We need some reliable and easily deployable solutions for IPv6 use to become >>> widespread, including in hosts behind legacy CPEs. >> why? >> >> my personal experience with host tunneling hasn't been great (ISATAP, Teredo, >> 6to4, configured, L2TP). and do ISPs really have an interest in supporting >> individual hosts? and be exposed to all of their peculiarities? >> >> it appears to me that we are filling in every possible square in the solution >> matrix. just because it is possible doesn't mean that it is useful or >> deployable... >> >> cheers, >> Ole > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
