[Discuss] Comcast's IPv6 deployment

[tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)]

Daniel Hagerty wrote:
> just skip that and go to the source matter at
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/alain-durand.pdf.

Ah, perfect, those sides from Comcast's IPv6 Architect explains how the
move to IPv6 was driven by their internal needs...

  Simplistic View of Comcast IP problem

  20 Million video customer
  2.5 set-top box per customer
  2 IP addresses per set-top box
  ----------------------------------------
  Total: 100 Millions IP address

  And we have not yet talked about High Speed Data...
  nor Comcast Digital Voice...
  nor merger/acquisition..

  -Until recently, Comcast was using Net 10 (RFC1918) for managing the
  cable modems.
  -That space has been exhausted in 2005.
  -In the control plane, all devices need to be remotely managed, so NAT
  isn't going to help us...
  -IPv6 is the clear solution for us
[...]
  IPv6 Strategy

  -Start early; Deployment plans have started back in 2005
[...]
  -Be ready to offer our customers new services that
  take advantage of IPv6


(Why do their set-top-boxes need 2 IP addresses?)

It sounds like if the business guys really wanted them to stick with
IPv4, they could have partitioned the network, but ended up with a
messier design and costlier management system. The slides make no
mention of a retail product that necessitated IPv6. It would seem that
it was a mostly engineering driven decision.

Will similar internal pressures apply to other national ISPs, or will
the business people chose to avoid new equipment expenditures, and use
IPv4 as a toll bridge as Huston suggests?

This paper is another reminder that Comcast's engineering group seems to
be in a different universe from Comcast's business people, who are
responsible for its public reputation.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/