: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49
To: Jamie Bowden
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6
I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living
that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or
faster than IPv4, doing
so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is
lacking.
What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which
I'm told have
Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R would like to recall the message, cost of dual-stack vs
cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?].
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding
IPv6 connectivity was an option
You need the January 11 2008 firmware (or newer) to do IPv6.
6to4 works fine but there is a bug with NAT-PT at present.
If you Google for
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells
consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature
that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you
ANOTHER CPE to
Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company
that sells consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why
release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could
do it later
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but
it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically
turn on IPv6 to them one day.
The only IPv6
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this
Mark Newton wrote:
Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck.
I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out
of the box.
Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6.
Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6
yet, but it might if they release software for it!
Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to
magically turn on IPv6 to them one day.
Hi MMC,
You might want to contribute
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra
recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every
customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology
costs in either single-stack scenario. The
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost.
Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5
year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote:
1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their
money off IPv4. We're already well into this state.
2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has
other transition mechanisms in place.
Who has the other
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola
wrote:
Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of
deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious
how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are
a slow but steady uptake across the rest of North
America.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the
extra recurring support cost of having to work through two
stacks with every customer that dials in as being far
greater than any technology costs in either single-stack
scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer.
This
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be
running IPv4 in 20
years. A two decade transition period just does not fit
this industry's
history.
To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is
actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have
shown). There are lots of bits
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote:
What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in
the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6.
Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to
deploy the
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and
Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is
using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport
service not
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
IPv6.
There are already
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this posited -- I had a hard
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is
_really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the
chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request
Randy,
actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be
demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do
not
care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back.
I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and
since that content is
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google
is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google
serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote:
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/,
True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is
still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is
accessible via IPv6? I might suggest
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We
tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My
colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices
they have
The IPv6 support on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's
not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices.
But
it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan
to
tunnel to.
Pete
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired.
That workaround does not work on the models with the
-Original Message-
From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote
I have an 877m (no wireless):
Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix.
All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just
peachy.
c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin
(Caveat: I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make
the LNS do what I
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Regards,
-drc
David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they
had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support:
Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99
No idea how well they support IPv6...
Looked at the manual, the
From: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jamie,
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean
to require a
DOCSIS 3.0 blade and/or CM.
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:48 AM
To: Mark Newton
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Mark Newton wrote
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc.
On 12-Mar-2008, at 16:06, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk -
iNAME wrote:
Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will
be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've
heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he
On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6,
Yes, there are many. Take a look at www.ipv6-to-standard.org
Regards,
Jordi
De: Frank Bulk - iNAME [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0500
Para: nanog@merit.edu
Asunto: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially
I seem to remember something about Earthlink rolling out v6 enabled
wifi routers to its customers (linksys with a hacked up firmware
that'd create a v6 tunnel between the cpe and an elnk tunnelbroker) ..
what happened to that interesting little product? Killed off and the
few remaining users
Frank,
Juniper Networks Does support IPv6 in J-Series Routers and SSG Firewalls:
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/j_series_services_routers/
http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/ex_series/index.html
If history is any guide the last Cisco boxes I worked on supported various
flavors of SDLC and pre-SNA IBM comm, DECnet and DECnet LAT, IPX, Burroughs,
poll select and the only protocol they do not still support is CorvisNet on
twisted pair. Some of these protocols have not seen the light of
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, John Lee wrote:
What I would like to see today is SOHO routers that do not interfere
with 6 over 4 transport since my ISP does not offer home DSL termination
of v6. Taking the silicon in a SOHO and adding 5 to 10 $ US in cost for
v6 and multiple that by 5 to get a retail
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
On 13/03/2008, at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said:
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the
instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that
, that as
far as name brands recognized in the U.S., only Apple makes a SOHO router
that support IPv6.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:56 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO
Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too:
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO
And it looks like the Buffalo WZR-AG300NH claims support, too:
http://www.buffalotech.com/files/products/wzr-ag300nh_DS.pdf
I don't consider Buffalo a tier 1 or 2 SOHO vendor, but they're still on my
top-ten list for SOHO networking vendors.
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From:
51 matches
Mail list logo
