RE: NANOG 40 agenda posted

[<michael.dillon () bt com>]

> For core links it should IMHO be mostly possible to keep them 
> IPv4/IPv6
> dual-stack.

What's wrong with MPLS in the core and 6PE at the edge?

Right there you have two possible tactics that are worthy of being
publicly discussed and compared. 

> Towards endusers it can become nasty, eg it would require upgrades of
> the CPE and also the infrastructure might need to be 
> upgraded.

On the other hand, there are vendors like Hexago that sell gateways
which can simplify this. Perhaps Hexago and other vendors should be
invited to showcase their boxes at a NANOG meeting. The great power of
NANOG has always been that the operations, research and vendor community
meet together and share information. Vendors go away and build better
boxes/software, researchers go away and follow new avenues of
investigation, operators go away and change their processes and network
designs.

Back in the day, there was something called Interop where vendors were
put under the thumb. Since there is no such thing for IPv6, perhaps
NANOG could step into that vacuum.

> For Cable
> systems only recently the Docsis 3.0 standard was released and that
> would still require a lot of upgrades. Tunneling those users 
> might be a
> way to provide IPv6 connectivity to these users without much 
> ado.

Cable is a consumer access technology. Realistically, IPv6 is going to
kick off with deployments to research, education and business users, not
consumers. Cable will catch up in their own good time as they are driven
to IPv6 by RFC 1918 exhaustion.

--Michael Dillon