V6 still not supported

Wed Mar 9 22:03:43 UTC 2022

IPv4 doesn't require NAT.

But to answer your question, I would say most if not all of the complaints
about NAT/double NAT are the Xbox saying strict nat instead of open.  These
complaints are super rare.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:01 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
>
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.
>
> Do customers ever complain about double NAT's?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
>>
>> I completely agree.
>>
>> I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning,
>> repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.
>>
>> But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has been for
>> the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no excuse for
>> not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.
>>
>> > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing
>> > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering symmetrical
>> > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON deployment. No
>> > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a person who
>> > even knew what it was.
>>
>> I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON provider.  At
>> least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is and know
>> that it's on their future list without even being in planing / testing
>> phase.
>>
>> > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no plans for it.
>>
>> ....
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Grant. . . .
>> unix || die
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220309/a1f28813/attachment.html>