3 ms·
The cost (in addition to those that other replies have pointed out) is also one of support. While a <10yr old device may support IPv6, it is often that they don
by cyanoacry 11y ago
The cost (in addition to those that other replies have pointed out) is also one of support. While a <10yr old device may support IPv6, it is often that they don't always perform exactly as designed. IPv4 & IPv6 co-existence is a little bit of a crapshoot at the device level.
This translates into super-large ramifications, especially for companies like Comcast--I can only imagine that they don't want to add yet another possible moving part, especially when there's almost zero benefit to the average customer.
- squeed 11y agoThat's a very reasonable position, especially with Comcast. Comcast has, in fact, led the IPv6 charge in terms of sizable US ISPs. The flip side of that coin is they have the money to invest in the engineering costs. I assume they did some analysis, computed the cost of NAT vs. IPv6, knowing full-well they'd have to do IPv6 sometime, and plowed ahead. It's the smaller ISPs that are just used to fixing stuff "when its broken" that are really in trouble.
- rleigh 11y agoThe cost and inertia is certainly very understandable, and it's nice to see Comcast being somewhat proactive here when compared with the rest. What does surprise me though is that IPv6 hasn't seen steady uptake when new companies set up new infrastructure from scratch or existing companies upgrade their kit. I would have thought that using IPv6 exclusively internally with DNS64/NAT64 to bridge the external IPv4 internet would offer some advantages.