NANOG 40 agenda posted

Sun May 27 16:48:23 UTC 2007

william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
>>> So, I think I can sum up your reply by saying that your suggestion is
>>> to provide a lesser service than we do now (v4 NAT, proxies, etc.
>>> sound to me like lesser service), during the transition period.
>>
>> I think you also missed the suggestion that sending out CPE with DD-wrt
>> was a 'good idea'. Honestly DD-wrt/open-wrt are nice solutions for
>> testing
>> or for people willing to fiddle, they are not a good solution for
>> 'grandma'.
>
> My parents and brother both have linksys with dd-wrt that I put up.
> I don't maintain it at all and it "just works". No, they are not using
> v6, but if it was available I don't anticipate any problems as their
> system os at home all support it now.
>
I am usually just lurk around here but I had to say something. Working
for a service provider that has tried to make an entire product around
IPV6 it does not work. Since none of the big players (google, yahoo,
etc...) have started to atleast provide some IPV6 content the little
guys are not going to jump on the bandwagon.

  Yes it's the chicken or the egg thing but its economics not logic that
will get people to move to IPV6.

Manolo