![]() |
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
I don't get why VM are being so secretive about it. Their rep in the video barely gave any useful information.
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
because they don't want to admit they are way behind the curve and it is going to be another 3 years before they catch up to BT and Sky.
Edit: I have just watched it and VM should be ashamed of themselves. They like to talk flap on about technology use terms like docsis 3 in their advertising but I can honestly say that I could have done that presentation more professionally and with more detail. Even if there weren't any new announcements they could have done a quick recap of what they have done, what they are doing and how things are going. Sky and BT's presentations were excellent and make VM look like a bunch of monkeys. It looks like somebody has walked into the janitors closet in the morning and said "who wants a paid day out to a conference and we'll give you double time for it". |
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
VM's main problem is that for IPv6 to work those piles of excrement in people's homes have to behave themselves.
Given those struggle with DOCSIS if it's not presented as they like new IP stacks can be a challenge. Superhub firmware, as people will have seen, struggles enough with IPv4. |
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
I bet the SH1 is going to love IPv6!!!!
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
I'm not sure how customer routers are going to fall offline as a result of VM enabling IPv6.
If the customer-owned routers don't support it they just won't send the DHCPv6 request? The issue with the Superhubs is more that VM will want them migrated to IPv6 on their HFC-side interface, the major point of IPv6 for cable companies is to allow for more addresses than RFC 1918 allows for HFC-side addresses, so they need them to support it. Zero point in VM deploying it if their owned CPE don't support it, hence the dependency. A full migration to IPv6 would allow for clean, centralised management of all Liberty Global cable territories without workarounds to compensate as there would no longer be RFC 1918 IPv4 address overlap between them forcing it. Sorry if I'm missing something, which I might be! |
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
Imagine this: Pure IPv4 network is running just fine. Then a router suddenly gets an IPv6 lease and starts broadcasting that to the other devices on the network. Those devices get an IPv6 address, so naturally next time they lookup google.com, they see the AAAA record, try to connect via IPv6 only to have the router drop the packet. Suddenly, Google no longer works, all from just enabling IPv6. I hope the situation is better these days, but certainly a couple of years ago there was a mess. I believe (can't cite a source though) that Vista's initial IPv6 support was also in some way broken, though I hope it has been fixed since then - still, customers aren't always known for keeping up to date. All they will see is one day it works fine, the next it doesn't. Also, it needs to be done. |
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
You are going back more than a couple of years ago with the IPv6 problem in Vista Kush. That was sorted out at least 5 years ago that I know of and possibly even earlier. The same can be said for XP.
|
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
Quote:
I don't think the vast majority of customers will be affected but even 1% is still tens of thousands. |
Re: VM IPv6 plans?
I very much doubt it will be as high as 1%'
0.000005% perhaps. I should imagine most of those will have the SH1. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum