> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800 > From: "George Bonser" <gbon...@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: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751