Re: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification

Ed Jankiewicz <> Fri, 08 October 2010 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFF43A677D for <>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.264
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H8wxW-HSiMt6 for <>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (mail.SRI.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D2C3A6781 for <>; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Received: from [] ([unknown] []) by (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:07:11 -0400
From: Ed Jankiewicz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
References: <> <> <>
In-reply-to: <>
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:06:12 -0000

  a colleague asked his broadband cable provider if he could get IPv6 on 
his Internet service.  The customer service rep didn't know but assured 
him he would look into it.  He got a quick reply via e-mail "thank you 
for your recent inquiry about IPV6.  We do our best to respond to 
customer requests for specific programming but technical limitations 
mean that we can't carry every piddling little international sports 
channel that..." Or something to that effect.

They will remain nameless, but I assure you this operator is 
well-represented in IETF.  I did stand up at a v6ops meeting to tell 
that story and say "to all of you who say we are ready to turn on IPv6 
as soon as our customers demand it - they may ask for it, but if your 
customer service folks and other staff don't know about IPv6 - you will 
never hear that the customers are asking."

On 10/7/2010 9:41 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <>  wrote:
>>> I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If
>>> there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out?
>> Well, when we surveyed 31 ISPs for draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios,
>> we found "When asked which types of equipment are unable to support IPv6, the
>> most common answer was CPE (10 mentions)." That doesn't directly answer
>> your question, but it suggests the size of the problem.
> Brian is right.  And when a customer asks for IPv6 features in end
> nodes, through any number channels (public, private, RFP, ...), the
> answers is frequently something like /dev/null .  For instance,
> ...
> So, if you work for a vendors that makes CPE / UE, please consider
> turning IPv6 on in your product.
> Cameron
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list