Subject: RE: Retail IPv6 Service in the US?

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:11:00 -0800

> % What we need is netgear and linksys to get on board and some of us
in
> % deployment land are bugging folks like that now.
> 
> Jim,
> 	what is the issue here?  I have both linksys and netgear
> 	kit in the home network and both pass native IPv6.  granted
> 	not all their kit works w/ IPv6.
> 
> --bill

Linksys and Netgear build different types of equipment. Their hub and
bridge/switch products most probably pass IPv6 through without any
problem. But IPv6 will not pass through a "home router" (e.g. a DSL
router) unless that device has some adequate code.

-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 23:42:18 +0900

>router) unless that device has some adequate code.

	(not sure what kind of codebase they're using, but anyways)
	if any of you have contacts in linksys/netgear, we'll be more than
	happy to help them out/do some clue injection.  so let me know.

itojun

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:47:05 +0200 (EET)

> router) unless that device has some adequate code.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Finland it's
relatively common to build DSL networks using bridged ATM encapsulation,
rather than routed ATM encapsulation, or PPPoE (PPPoA is another issue).
(From IPv4 perspective, this has the benefit that the ISP can use public
IP addresses better -- no need for NATting DSL router).

In this scenario, the DSL router just acts as a smart bridge.

Native IPv6 works just fine through the DSL router/bridge which knows
nothing about IPv6.

Deploying IPv6 in (some) DSL networks doesn't need to be complex, quite
the contrary...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:41:04 +0100

Pekka Savola wrote:

<SNIP>

> Native IPv6 works just fine through the DSL router/bridge which knows

Which I have at my home, but... unfortunatly for me the Redback SMS on
which my ADSL line terminates doesn't do IPv6, so I am out of luck
there.
There is a small possibility though that my upstream ISP will mirror out
the IPv6 data to anothere router which could then take care of it.
Fortunatly my line terminates at AMS-IX, thus it's only 1ms to our
IPng.nl tunnelbox, thus at least latency isn't an issue using it
tunneled.
Cistron does have an sTLA now fortunatly, so they are aware of IPv6.
(And they did do IPv6 back in 1998 already, sad that their hw doesn't do
it :(

Thus not only the enduser should be able to do it, but the provider side
too.
The enduser is going to need to upgrade their OS most of the time at the
moment.
But that shouldn't be a big issue, another point is ofcourse:
applications...

> Deploying IPv6 in (some) DSL networks doesn't need to be 
> complex, quite the contrary...

Indeed, that's why Xs4all (www.xs4all.nl) provides a second service
called PowerDSL which does go over the abovementioned bbned network
and thus now they do provide native IPv6. Their first 'mxstream' service
from KPN, which is a form of adsl too uses PPTP tunnels though and
I don't think KPN has enough clue for enabling IPv6 over them :(

Chello does native IPv6 to many endusers even though the endusers aren't
aware.
Which is not a good thing either imho, awareness is something we should
focus
on too.

Maybe there should be a big 'these ISP's do Retail IPv6' list?
And not only for the US, but for the complete world.
Looking at my GRH TLA stats: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/

APNIC:  92 of which 29 didn't get announced
ARIN:   42 ........ 16 ...
RIPE:  139 ........ 43 ...

But ofcourse ISP's giving access to endusers could be among the working
ones...

Greets,
 Jeroen