V6 still not supported

Thu Mar 10 20:44:00 UTC 2022

>but nowadays, some are going all v6.

Where is there v6 only services/content?

>v4-only ISPs will be at a competitive disadvantage

That's such a wild claim I'd love to know where you come to that
conclusion.  In my rural market, we're the only option for service, simple
as that.  In the urban areas we find it's all about price promos to get the
customer the lowest price.  These same people can't tell the difference
between three different companies (we were installing fiber next door and a
guy kept asking us if we were Spectrum, he simply didn't understand we were
a different company).  They don't understand the difference between the
internet and WiFi.  Yet they'll prefer a v6 ISP over a v4 ISP?  Come on.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:24 PM netElastic Systems <tmitchell at netelastic.com>
wrote:

> FWIW, most of my ISPs all know about dual stack and want it.  I think the
> legacy websites, CPE and applications that hard code IPv4 make it a tough
> battle - it's easier to just support v4, but nowadays, some are going all
> v6.  At some point, v4-only ISPs will be at a competitive disadvantage.
> ISPs that force this will not have to buy CGNAT or spend $60 on a v4
> address, but yes, it's still a tough slog.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tmitchell=netelastic.com at nanog.org> On Behalf
> Of
> Tim Howe
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:40 PM
> To: Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>; nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported
>
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:46:56 -0500
> Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
> > ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
> >
> > Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.
>
> Right.  And this view point (which I have /some/ sympathy for) is what
> we're
> up against.  The average person doesn't know IPv6 is a thing, so of course
> they aren't going to ask for it. But they don't know IPv4 is a thing
> either,
> they just want to connect to the Internet.
>
>         It seems to require an unusual, and difficult-to-justify, drive to
> make IPv6 happen as part of a forward-looking strategy.
>
>         ISPs don't deploy it because equipment vendors don't really supply
> it (or barely).  Equipment vendors don't supply it because ISPs don't ask
> for it (at least that's what my vendors tell me, and I don't think they are
> lying).
>
>         Our standard PON and Metro services are dual-stack by default -
> commercial and residential.  Our supplied CPEs are dual stack by default.
> We offer IPv6 in a variety of configurations on every connectivity product
> that will support it.
>
>         However, I do not really blame those who don't, because in order to
> get where we are I had to make it my personal mission in life to get to a
> passive FTTP configuration that would work with functional parity between
> v4
> and v6...
>         For over a year I had to test gear, which requires a lot of time
> and
> effort and study and support and managerial latitude.  I had to isolate
> bugs
> and spend the time reporting them, which often means making a pain in the
> butt out of yourself and championing the issue with the vendor (sometimes
> it
> means committing to buying things).  I had to INSIST on support from
> vendors
> and refuse to buy things that didn't work.  I had to buy new gear I would
> not have otherwise needed.
> I also had to "fire" a couple of vendors and purge them from my network; I
> even sent back an entire shipment of gear to a vendor due to broken
> promises.
>
>         Basically I had to be extremely unreasonable.  My position is
> unique
> in that I was able to do these things and get away with it.  I can't blame
> anyone for not going down that road.  I'm still waiting to feel like it was
> worth it.
>
> --TimH
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220310/8fbdfb9a/attachment.html>