![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Confusion
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:15:13 +0100 (CET)
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
The really scary thing is that deploying carrier-grade NAT might be cheaper to the service provider than rolling IPv6 to its residential subscribers.
The really scary thing is that in areas where there are only two major ISPs, both might go for CGN and then you have no choice.
The important thing is to have proper competition, that's the way innovation gets into the market.
On the other hand, I have little problem in seeing a future with different service offerings, one being "IPv4 only behind CGN" and another being "globally routable IPv4 address with 6to4 support" and a third being "globally routable IPv4 address with native IPv6 and a /56 (or /48)".
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Scott Howard (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Carl Rosevear (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mark Smith (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nathan Ward (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Kevin Oberman (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Randy Bush (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Frank Bulk (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 19)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Carl Rosevear (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Paul Ferguson (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mark Smith (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion TJ (Feb 17)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Kevin Loch (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Nick Hilliard (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion John Schnizlein (Feb 18)