On 05/09/2014 17:47, "Will Hargrave" <[email protected]> wrote: > >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.
Personal attack? Is it that easy to pull your leg ? :) However, I must apologise as I did read something not as you had written it! >So, Neil, why is BT different from Comcast? They need IPV6 because they have no V4 addresses left? You tell me? I¹m not intimately familiar with Comcast¹s platform but at least its DOCSIS, doesn¹t do wholesale as far as I know, those would be pretty decent sized differences also but the key driver for IPV6 is not having enough IPV4 addresses, and at least in Europe that doesn¹t seem to be the case (yet). What I can also tell you is that V6 generated harder things to fix than CGN has done. Quite obvious really, as one controls everything in CGN but one can¹t say the same about controlling other folks V6 networks. When something in the V6 network breaks in my experience its typically dealt with at a slower rate than V4, having dual stack at home I ended up turning it off because a bunch of sites that had V6 broke it and then took along time to fix it, that¹s just not a scenario I want to unleash on the customers I want to serve. Lets not mention the spam that comes through V6 either again because people have done half baked deployments. Regards, Neil.
