V6 still not supported

Thu Mar 10 22:58:50 UTC 2022

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:45 PM Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:

> >but nowadays, some are going all v6.
>
> Where is there v6 only services/content?
>

V6 only to 100m+ Smartphones and now coming up on millions of home
broadband , we out here

https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-mobile-us-goes-ipv6-only-using-464xlat/

> >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/20220310/78130e33/attachment.html>