nanog mailing list archives
RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800
-----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.
Current thread:
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials, (continued)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Bill Fehring (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials John Jason Brzozowski (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Seth Mattinen (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials nick hatch (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials John Jason Brzozowski (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Tony Varriale (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 29)
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials George Bonser (Jan 27)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Kevin Oberman (Jan 27)
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials George Bonser (Jan 27)
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials Scott Berkman (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials steve pirk [egrep] (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Joe Hamelin (Jan 28)