On 5 Sep 2014, at 17:07, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately >>> its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix >>> all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. >> That¹s quite interesting, as other large ISPs (which are presumably >> connected to the same internet?) have not had this problem. Google has >> analysed broken v6 and does not think it a barrier to deployment. >> I wonder why BT differs so much from Comcast, Verizon or AT&?T, all of >> whom have penetration in the 20-60% range. > Wow Wee Will 20-60% (!) that¹s a very big range!
Yes. This is because i was talking about multiple ISPs, who have different penetration rates, as one might expect. According to the article at [1], Comcast is at 30%, AT&T > 20% and Verizon Wireless at 54%. Other data points are available. The specifics do not matter. > On your other points I think you need to re-read what I wrote! Or more > importantly focus on what I did say versus what you made up above! My other points? I only made one, and that was to ask you why BT is different, from, say, Comcast. This is a technical list, and I and many others would like to hear your experiences and data points. You can stop wasting both yours and my time with personal attacks and all that tedious crap, because my reading comprehension is just fine. To assist you, I re-quoted both your and my original text above. So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? [1] http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/07/comcast-twc-verizon-at-t-pushing-ipv6-transition-in-us
