Comcast IPv6 Trials

Mon Feb 1 07:39:20 UTC 2010

Richard Barnes wrote:
> What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is
> starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out
> of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with >1 IP address (e.g.,
> for user data / control of the cable box).

What do you meaning starting, that happened years ago.

15 million ip subscribers, 6 million voice subscribers, 30 million cable
tv subscribers...

> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Kevin Oberman <oberman at es.net> wrote:
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800
>>> From: "George Bonser" <gbonser at seven.com>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: William McCall
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
>>>>
>>>> Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without
>>>> going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving
>>>> towards this trial?
>>>
>>> SWAG: Comcast is a mobile operator.  At some point NAT becomes very
>>> expensive for mobile devices and it makes sense to use IPv6 where you
>>> don't need to do NAT.  Once you deploy v6 on your mobile net, it is to
>>> your advantage to have the stuff your mobile devices connect to also be
>>> v6.  Do do THAT your network needs to transport v6 and once your net is
>>> ipv6 enabled, there is no reason not to leverage that capability to the
>>> rest of your network. /SWAG
>>>
>>> My gut instinct says that mobile operators will be a major player in v6
>>> adoption.
>> SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and
>> Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far).
>> --
>> R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
>> Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
>> Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
>> E-mail: oberman at es.net                  Phone: +1 510 486-8634
>> Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
>>
>>
> 