[Bp_ipv6] Comments on the baseline draft of Background Paper

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Sun Aug 30 02:28:39 EDT 2015


> On 30 aug 2015, at 06:00, Chip Sharp (chsharp) <chsharp at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Patrik,
> 
> Hope you are doing well. 
> 
> See below…
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> On 27 Aug 2015, at 23:17, Chip Sharp (chsharp) wrote:
>> 
>>> * We also need to look at this from the bitstream provider’s perspective.  A bitstream/wholesale provider could face capital and operational expenses to support IPv6, much like a retail provider (see comment on cost above).  Or are you saying that the bitstream provider is actively blocking IPv6?
>> 
>> As I am behind the biststream example, yes, they are blocking IPv6. Question is whether it can be called "actively" if they do not have equipment that support IPv6?
> 
> The key point I’m making here is that network upgrades to support IPv6 are a cost for bitstream/wholesale providers just like they are for other network operators.

Understood.

What I am trying to say is that regulation already exists that requires whoever owns the  fibre to provide LLUB, but that regulation is not used. If someone that has exclusive right to activate the fibre is not interested to make the investment you talk about, why is not regulation authorities acting and enforcing creation of competition?

   Patrik

> 
>> The problem we have in Sweden is when fibre is deployed, and there is _exclusive_ right to activate the fibre. I.e. one and only one company is allowed to rent it. If this company is providing a bitstream access that do not support IPv6 (and in this case linked to, it does not support 10G, only 1G), what do you do as an Internet Access Provider? Well, you request ability to dig down your own fibre. If you then get a "no" from the city council (that owns the party being a monopolist), then you go to the competition authorities. Specifically as we in Europe do have rules for LLUB/Bitstream for copper (as you say Chip) and also for subsidy of fibre requirements that the passive infrastructure that have got support from public sector must be available according to non-discriminatory terms.
>> 
>> In the case I brought forward the competition authorities acknowledged issues, but turned down further investigation because: 1. it is only about one customer (yes, but it was a crystal clear case) and 2. if the government wanted bitstream to be so neutral, they could issue a law about it (which they have not).
>> 
>> So, the exclusive right to activate fibre, the lack of LLUB, together with everything from broken bitstream to actively blocking IPv6, is creating big problems in Europe. Not only for IPv6 but for competition situation.
> 
> I’m not arguing to exclude this case (nor its validity), but if access bitstream/wholesale provider support is needed for IPv6 deployment then all aspects of the problem should be explored including the cost to the bitstream/wholesale provider of upgrades and the switching cost for retail ISPs (in situations where there might be competition).
> 
>> 
>> Why LLUB is mandatory on copper, but not on fibre, I just do not understand, and no politician have been able to explain the difference between copper and glass to me. Well, part from responses coming directly from lobbying organizations from incumbents of course. That the copper was built hundreds of years ago while glass is new investments. An argument that is easy to kill. But no one tries.
>> 
>>  Patrik
> 
> ** I am employed by Cisco Systems, Inc, but these comments reflect my own opinion and not any position of Cisco. **
> 
> 




More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list