nanog mailing list archives
Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
From: Joakim Aronius <joakim () aronius com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:44:38 +0100
* Paul Stewart (pstewart () nexicomgroup net) wrote:
That really makes sense - on an incredibly smaller scale (and I mean MUCH smaller scale), we operate cable modem in two small communities - currently we use 3 IP addresses per subscriber. One for the cable modem itself, one for the subscriber (or more depending on their package), and one for voice delivery (packetcable). If we moved even two of three IP assignments to native V6 we'd reclaim a lot of V4 space - I can only imagine someone their size and what this means... Paul
Excuse the newbie question: Why use public IP space for local CPE management and VoIP? Doesn't DOCSIS support traffic separation? /J
Current thread:
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Richard Barnes (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials tvest (Jan 28)
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials TJ (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials tvest (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Kevin Oberman (Jan 28)
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials Paul Stewart (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Joakim Aronius (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Tim Durack (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Chris Gotstein (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Tim Durack (Jan 28)
- RE: Comcast IPv6 Trials TJ (Jan 28)
- Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Joel Jaeggli (Jan 31)