Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

["Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>]

Scott Helms <khelms () ispalliance net> writes:

> IPv6 for some ISPs will be extraordinarily painful because of legacy
> layer 2 gear (usually DSLAMs that drop any frame with IPv6 in the
> EtherType field), inability to upgrade customer gear efficiently
> (again mainly a DSL problem where TR-069 isn't in use), and the
> requirement to replace PPPoE/oA termination gear (like Redback SMSs)
> means that a small telco (say 3000 DSL lines) could be facing a
> multi-million dollar expense to enable IPv6 for customers.
>
> For ISPs in this circumstance the choice will be CGNAT rather than
> IPv6 

Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade
schedule allows.  Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT.

-r