sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband speeds
Brandon Martin
lists.nanog at monmotha.net
Fri Dec 1 22:46:40 UTC 2023
On 12/1/23 16:45, Shane Ronan wrote:
> Unfortunately from my experience it's usually because the small local
> ISPs don't have the resources to understand IPv6, and may be using
> equipment generations old that may not support IPv6. It's the large ISPs
> that don't want to do it because it would increase their operational
> costs and require upgrades to operational systems and they see no new
> revenue associated.
Honestly, how old is your equipment at this point to not support IPv6 at
all or usably in the data plane and in-band parts of the control plane?
I wouldn't think it's even commercially relevant anymore. Pretty much
anything L3 with at least 10Gb ports probably has support for most
things relevant to a small local ISP.
You might be missing some niceties, but even some new stuff is missing
those. The big one I've seen is a nice way to handle DHCPv6-PD
delegations without having to resort to using BGP to inject the routes
(looking at you, Extreme SLX).
--
Brandon Martin
More information about the NANOG
mailing list