How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Cryptographrix cryptographrix at
Fri Oct 2 16:35:03 UTC 2015

Unfortunately, the files at the NANOG links you posted are not available,
but I think I get the premise of them from their summaries and what you're
trying to say - thank you for linking.

The discussion about CGN maintenance versus IPv6 adoption is important at
the NANOG level because of exactly what (I think) you're trying to say, and
the only contribution I have to that is that "we need more IPv6-capable
NetOps and vendors" - I suspect we all know this.

It makes me curious about the churn rate between ISPs, but that's a
different topic and everything you've said is spot on.

What seems really important/would be progressive at the moment is that
vendors release IPv6-capable "plug and play" gear.

Is there any vendor that's currently working on a home router that provides
*only* IPv6 internally, with NAT64 IPv6->IPv4?

If we wanted to really get this started, that (and a bunch of articles
about "use this router to get IPv6 in your house") sounds like it could be
really productive.

Additionally, is it possible for ISPs to offer IPv6 transit-exclusive plans
for people that would like to get just that?

Maybe with the ability to have all ports open from the get-go as an

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:02 PM George, Wes < at>

> On 10/2/15, 10:48 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Cryptographrix"
> <nanog-bounces at on behalf of cryptographrix at> wrote:
> >For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from
> >providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers?
> If they'd like to continue growing at something above churn rate, they
> need additional IP addresses to give their new customers.
> Buying those addresses, undertaking projects to free up addresses from
> other internal uses, or using CGN to share existing ones all have
> nontrivial costs. The fewer things they need to make work on legacy IPv4,
> the lower those costs can be (less CGN capacity since IPv6 traffic
> bypasses the NAT, less support costs because less stuff breaks by going
> through the NAT, etc).[1,2,3] But that's dependent on content and CPE
> supporting it, so a number of large ISPs have chosen to go ahead and
> deploy[4], and focus on pushing the progress on the other fronts so that
> they can see that benefit of deploying.
> Wes George
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
> have no control over it.
> -----------
> ________________________________
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the NANOG mailing list