Re: Looking for comments

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:57:22 +0100
Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:

> On 22/07/2010 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > As for those two scenarios (IPv6-only ISPs and IPv6-only clients, to simplify
> > them), the document doesn't place them as first preference solutions.
> > However, the fact is that various *extremely* large operators find themselves
> > more or less forced into these scenarios by IPv4 exhaustion.
>
> Some of the extremely large operators have found themselves having to 
> deploy ipv6 extensively in order to manage CPE devices and their 
> infrastructure networks.  However, I'm not aware of any large provider 
> which is deploying ipv6-only customer access products, either due to a 
> shortage of ipv4 space or any other reason.  If you can supply names of 
> providers doing this, I'd be very interested to hear.

Does this qualify? What the customer sees is delivered over IPv6,
unlike the CPE management problem, where the ISP is the "IPv6 customer".

"IPv6: The Future of IPTV? In Japan it isn't the future, it's now."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3795086/IPv6-The-Future-of-IPTV.htm

> That's not to say that they won't start doing this relatively shortly. 
> And you correctly point out that we need to create solutions _now_ so 
> that access providers will have feature equivalence when they start 
> deploying ipv6 in anger on access / hosted networks.
>
> This is a cue to get people on this list to shout at their vendors for 
> ipv6 feature equivalence on their favourite kit.
>
> Nick