6 ms·

IPv6 is a hard sell for the average customer and because of that to the ISPs that provide service to them. IPv6 doesn't make anything go faster, or let custome

by nickcw 5y ago

IPv6 is a hard sell for the average customer and because of that to the ISPs that provide service to them. IPv6 doesn't make anything go faster, or let customers access anything they can't already access and quite likely it will make difficult to diagnose networking problems which break stuff (speaking from personal experience with IPv6 here!). I don't think ISPs will be motivated to give out IPv6 addresses routinely until there are important areas of the internet which are IPv6 only. Until that point they would just be making more support burden for themselves. And I can't see important stuff going IPv6 only any time soon since you don't make a new and exciting service which the majority of people can't access.

xur17 5y ago
I think it was 5 or 10 years ago, but there were some websites that did exactly that. I distinctly remember setting up an ipv6 gateway so I could get access to free newsgroups. I think there was other stuff as well, I just don't remember it all. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/k9aqjy/newszilla6xs4allnl_not_free_any_more/gf3cow8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/k9aqjy/newszilla6xs...
oarsinsync 5y ago
One of the largest ISPs in the UK (BT) provides dual stack connectivity as standard. Their CPE is configured to enable dual stack LANs as standard. Few consumers login to their CPE to change anything. "It Just Works."
- billpg 5y ago
  Are you sure? I use BT and I all of the IPv6 testing websites I found report no-support.
  - kiwijamo 5y ago
    Are you using their CPE, and a recent one at that? Several RSPs here in New Zealand are starting to enable IPv6 on new CPE gear they supply to end users (although Spark, our equivalent to your BT, has remained the only large provider to not do any IPv6 at all). I'm finding that this is becoming a situation where if you don't use the RSP supplied gear it can be tricky to get IPv6 up and running on your own gear. I used Ubiquiti gear previously which I had trouble getting IPv6 working until someone who worked for my RSP pointed out that their PPPoE stack is IPv4 only, I needed to redo my config to DHCP/IPoE instead (was a TIL moment when I realised my RSP offers both PPPoE and DHCP/IPoE over the same connection). Replaced my Ubiquiti with Microtik and I can't get IPv6 to work at all even with config that seems to me to be the equivalent to what I had on the Ubiquiti gear.
- corford 5y ago
  MEO (the largest ISP in Portugal) is also dual stack by default.
alerighi 5y ago
But there is motivation for ISP to use IPv6. They save a ton of money on IP addresses, and they don't need the infrastructure to keep a NAT. And I don't mean only the cost of running it, in my country for example by law the ISP has to maintain a log for 5 or 10 years of all the IP addresses assigned to the user, and in case of a NAT even of all connection and source ports associated with each client. That is a cost that you will save with IPv6, just assigning an entire /64 subnet to every customer. Of course you will start to save money at the point where we can switch off IPv4, that is not something we will see tomorrow, but if we don't start, the problem will not become better with time, but worse. IPv6 is an investment for ISP, more than customers (that it's not true they don't care, they maybe don't understand the technical details, but when they find out that they can't play online with their PlayStation/Xbox because they are behind a NAT, they will complain to the ISP).
- crazygringo 5y ago
  > They save a ton of money on IP addresses, and they don't need the infrastructure to keep a NAT. I don't see that at all. Everyone still needs an IPv4 to the outside world for compatibility, and pretty much all the time 24/7, so they wouldn't be saving money at all. And why do they need a NAT? My NAT only happens on my personal router, not at the ISP level. It's not something that concerns the ISP at all. So I don't understand any of the motivation you're describing. (And if there are legal requirements around recording connections and ports and whatnot, you'll still have to record each connection made under IPv6 as well right? And may I ask where you live that every TCP connection you establish gets logged for 5-10 years? Recording your assigned IP address is one thing -- and for most people's home connections it rarely changes -- but I've never heard of recording every connection.)
  - sleepydog 5y ago
    I agree with you. From an ISP's perspective I don't see why IPv6 would be cheaper. Any change at all, even a positive change, is expensive at the scale ISPs operate at. And NAT is cheap. One small thing, though: > My NAT only happens on my personal router, not at the ISP level. It's not something that concerns the ISP at all. "Carrier-grade" (what a laughable term) NAT exists. You are fortunate that your ISP does not implement it. Do you happen to have a business plan, or a gigabit plan? There is also ds-lite which I've read comcast uses extensively. Here customers get ipv6 addresses only, and share a pool of v4 addresses when they exit the ISP's network.
fomine3 5y ago
Here in Japan, IPv6 is actually "fast" because of the network architecture. Flets is most popular FTTH service that available nationwide by telco. Traditionally it only provides IPv4 service via PPPoE, but the architecture is inefficient and getting old so they started IPv6 service directly on Ethernet (called IPoE, a bit funny). VoIP Telephony service is also provided by IPv6 so the network called NGN. Now the traditional PPPoE service is getting very slow due to they won't invest very well for old architecture equipment. Instead, they advice to use IPv6 IPoE for faster connection. For IPv4 connectivity, ISPs offer v4 over v6 solution like DS-Lite, MAP-E, and 464XLAT for home (shared v4 address) or IPIP for dedicated v4 address. Many people use both IPv6 IPoE (fast) and IPv4 PPPoE (slow) because their router don't support v4 over v6, or just prefer dedicated IP for lower costs (like me), so it's important for service operator to enable IPv6 connectivity, to provide faster service. Please support IPv6!

by nickcw 5y ago

xur17 5y ago

I think it was 5 or 10 years ago, but there were some websites that did exactly that. I distinctly remember setting up an ipv6 gateway so I could get access to free newsgroups. I think there was other stuff as well, I just don't remember it all. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/k9aqjy/newszilla6xs4allnl_not_free_any_more/gf3cow8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/comments/k9aqjy/newszilla6xs...

oarsinsync 5y ago

One of the largest ISPs in the UK (BT) provides dual stack connectivity as standard. Their CPE is configured to enable dual stack LANs as standard. Few consumers login to their CPE to change anything. "It Just Works."

billpg 5y ago
Are you sure? I use BT and I all of the IPv6 testing websites I found report no-support.
- kiwijamo 5y ago
  Are you using their CPE, and a recent one at that? Several RSPs here in New Zealand are starting to enable IPv6 on new CPE gear they supply to end users (although Spark, our equivalent to your BT, has remained the only large provider to not do any IPv6 at all). I'm finding that this is becoming a situation where if you don't use the RSP supplied gear it can be tricky to get IPv6 up and running on your own gear. I used Ubiquiti gear previously which I had trouble getting IPv6 working until someone who worked for my RSP pointed out that their PPPoE stack is IPv4 only, I needed to redo my config to DHCP/IPoE instead (was a TIL moment when I realised my RSP offers both PPPoE and DHCP/IPoE over the same connection). Replaced my Ubiquiti with Microtik and I can't get IPv6 to work at all even with config that seems to me to be the equivalent to what I had on the Ubiquiti gear.
corford 5y ago
MEO (the largest ISP in Portugal) is also dual stack by default.

alerighi 5y ago

But there is motivation for ISP to use IPv6. They save a ton of money on IP addresses, and they don't need the infrastructure to keep a NAT. And I don't mean only the cost of running it, in my country for example by law the ISP has to maintain a log for 5 or 10 years of all the IP addresses assigned to the user, and in case of a NAT even of all connection and source ports associated with each client. That is a cost that you will save with IPv6, just assigning an entire /64 subnet to every customer. Of course you will start to save money at the point where we can switch off IPv4, that is not something we will see tomorrow, but if we don't start, the problem will not become better with time, but worse. IPv6 is an investment for ISP, more than customers (that it's not true they don't care, they maybe don't understand the technical details, but when they find out that they can't play online with their PlayStation/Xbox because they are behind a NAT, they will complain to the ISP).

crazygringo 5y ago
> They save a ton of money on IP addresses, and they don't need the infrastructure to keep a NAT. I don't see that at all. Everyone still needs an IPv4 to the outside world for compatibility, and pretty much all the time 24/7, so they wouldn't be saving money at all. And why do they need a NAT? My NAT only happens on my personal router, not at the ISP level. It's not something that concerns the ISP at all. So I don't understand any of the motivation you're describing. (And if there are legal requirements around recording connections and ports and whatnot, you'll still have to record each connection made under IPv6 as well right? And may I ask where you live that every TCP connection you establish gets logged for 5-10 years? Recording your assigned IP address is one thing -- and for most people's home connections it rarely changes -- but I've never heard of recording every connection.)
- sleepydog 5y ago
  I agree with you. From an ISP's perspective I don't see why IPv6 would be cheaper. Any change at all, even a positive change, is expensive at the scale ISPs operate at. And NAT is cheap. One small thing, though: > My NAT only happens on my personal router, not at the ISP level. It's not something that concerns the ISP at all. "Carrier-grade" (what a laughable term) NAT exists. You are fortunate that your ISP does not implement it. Do you happen to have a business plan, or a gigabit plan? There is also ds-lite which I've read comcast uses extensively. Here customers get ipv6 addresses only, and share a pool of v4 addresses when they exit the ISP's network.

fomine3 5y ago

Here in Japan, IPv6 is actually "fast" because of the network architecture. Flets is most popular FTTH service that available nationwide by telco. Traditionally it only provides IPv4 service via PPPoE, but the architecture is inefficient and getting old so they started IPv6 service directly on Ethernet (called IPoE, a bit funny). VoIP Telephony service is also provided by IPv6 so the network called NGN. Now the traditional PPPoE service is getting very slow due to they won't invest very well for old architecture equipment. Instead, they advice to use IPv6 IPoE for faster connection. For IPv4 connectivity, ISPs offer v4 over v6 solution like DS-Lite, MAP-E, and 464XLAT for home (shared v4 address) or IPIP for dedicated v4 address. Many people use both IPv6 IPoE (fast) and IPv4 PPPoE (slow) because their router don't support v4 over v6, or just prefer dedicated IP for lower costs (like me), so it's important for service operator to enable IPv6 connectivity, to provide faster service. Please support IPv6!