From: tvest@eyeconomics.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:34:52 -0500>> From: tvest@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12
>> To: Richard Barnes
>> Cc: NANOG
>> Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail
>> Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the
>> same course of action (?).
>> They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address-
>> intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial
>> announcements/pre-announcements?
>
> Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as a
> swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ...
>
> /TJI have no particular reason to to doubt that claim, and lots of
reasons to actively hope that you are right.That said, the appearance of more public commitments like this -- and
sooner rather than later -- could make a large difference, e.g., by
reducing the general level of uncertainty (and uncertainty-amplifying
speculation) during the terminal stages of IPv4 allocation.While no commercial entity would (and none should) willingly make such
a public commitment before they're ready, it would be prudent to
consider the potential downsides of that looming uncertainty when
making judgements about how "ready" (or perhaps "ready enough") should
be defined.
Might be worth noting that Comcast has been using IPv6 heavily for
internal connectivity (including router access) for some time and
already had substantial experience with IPv6, so I suspect that they are
ahead of others on this.