drc at virtualized.org
Sat Apr 3 16:35:56 CDT 2010
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> If "every significant router on the market" supported IPv6 five years ago,
> why aren't transit links glowing with IPv6 connectivity? If it's not the
> hardware, than I'm guessing it's something else, like people or processes?
Or the fact that "supporting IPv6" could (and as far I could tell did until very recently) mean minimalistic process switching of packets without any of the 'niceties' of filtering, management, monitoring, etc. support. It also ignores the fact that there is a bit more to providing Internet service than simply running routers.
However, historically we had:
1) why should ISPs pay to deploy IPv6 when their customers aren't asking for it?
2) why should customers ask for IPv6 when there is no content available via it?
3) why should content providers make their content available over IPv6 when they can't get it from their ISPs and none of their customers are asking for it?
It may be that IPv4 free pool run out will result in costs for obtaining IPv4 to rise sufficiently to address (1). Or we could have multi-layer NAT.
More information about the NANOG