IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 17 19:35:03 CST 2011
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <1DBDCA5F-16EC-428D-BC46-3BD59A6F4CDB at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
>>> You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
>>> to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
>>> code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
>>> box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
>> Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting. The difference between
>> having them bring their CPE in to be reflashed or rolling a truck
>> to do same vs. replacing the CPE will, in most cases, actually render
>> replacing the CPE cheaper.
> It depends on the CPE device. Lots of CPE devices can be re-flashed
> in place. It just requires the will to make the images available.
Who do you think is going to do this reflashing? If you think that Grandma
is going to download an image and reflash her linksys, you're at least
slightly divorced from reality.
If you think she's going to do it and not have about a 10% brick rate
(10% of devices going from router to brick) as a result, then, you're
optimistic to say the least.
>>> It can be deployed incrementally.
>> So can replacing the CPE, but, neither is a particularly attractive
>> alternative for many providers.
> And further indecision is going to make this worse not better.
On this we agree...
Which is why we should decide to move to IPv6 and get on with it instead
of continuing to pursue rat-holes like 240/4.
More information about the NANOG