> But ISPs need to stop dragging their damn feet...
But, why would they if dragging their feet makes them a lot of money? Why would they bother unless there's massive demand from the public for full IPv6 adoption?
I mean even ISPs with IPv6 support don't care about the IPv6 experience of their customers. AT&T, for example, doesn't give more than a /64 address space to home users, which only supports one subnet. If you have, say, a guest network and a trusted network, you can't have separate inbound routing/firewall rules as both would have the same prefix.
So, I disagree that convincing network operators is the right way to go about it. We need to convince the public about the benefits of IPv6.
But, why would they if dragging their feet makes them a lot of money? Why would they bother unless there's massive demand from the public for full IPv6 adoption?
I mean even ISPs with IPv6 support don't care about the IPv6 experience of their customers. AT&T, for example, doesn't give more than a /64 address space to home users, which only supports one subnet. If you have, say, a guest network and a trusted network, you can't have separate inbound routing/firewall rules as both would have the same prefix.
So, I disagree that convincing network operators is the right way to go about it. We need to convince the public about the benefits of IPv6.
reply