4 ms·

I work at an ISP and not a single customer has ever even mentioned IPv6. There zero demand on the residential side.

by eppp 5y ago

mgarfias 5y ago
I’ve begged my isp to get on it
- eppp 5y ago
  I just got a /32 from ARIN to start implementing it on our network but it is by no stretch of the imagination worth the effort. I will probably have at least 40 hours into testing it and no increased revenue will be realized by it. Maybe IPv6 was the the right thing to due but the practical implementation is ridiculous.
  - toast0 5y ago
    I doubt you'll see more revenue from it. If you're low on v4 addresses and you're willing to put (some) subscribers behind CGNAT, then inplementing v6 should reduce the number of v4 addresses you need and thus reduce your costs. If you give each subscriber an IPv4, then yeah, added operational cost, no revenue, maybe added capital cost depending on your equipment. Not much upside for a small ISP. In a competitive market, v6 can get you some points with the technical folks, but not many.
  - kalleboo 5y ago
    There's not much upside for a legacy network that already has all the IPv4 it needs, but an upstart ISP will do well starting with IPv6 and layering CGNAT IPv4 on top. With 30% of the Alexa top 500 supporting IPv6 (and a lot of the top traffic sites like Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Netflix etc) it will reduce the amount of IPv4 you need to buy
  - elktea 5y ago
    have you seen the cost of v4 recently?
gorgoiler 5y ago
My experience was that my ISP (major cell provider) silently moved everyone to IPv6, did DNS64 for most legacy stuff, and provided RFC1918 IPv4 NAT for anything else. No customer demand was involved, I imagine.
- eppp 5y ago
  That is one of the most disappointing aspects of ipv6. Even if you implement it perfectly you are still stuck with having to deal with ipv4 with no end in sight. Had backward compatibility been a primary goal, is there any doubt we would have made vastly more progress at this point 20+ years later?
  - azernik 5y ago
    It's an address space expansion. You were always going to need hacky stuff for legacy clients, and for any service that wants to be reachable by said clients.
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      > It's an address space expansion Exactly this. There is no "backwards compatible" way to have more addresses in a protocol that's wedded to 32-bit addresses. That's just how numbers work. The protocol with a larger address space will be incompatible, and so anybody who seems surprised/ disappointed hasn't even really thought about the problem.
betaby 5y ago
I worked at an (residential) ISP and not a single customer has ever asked about IPv4 or IPv9 or any IPvX. They were buying 'Internet' or even 'Wi-Fi'. Now, on on the DSL reports there are plenty of questions 'When will ISP_X will support IPV6'
- eppp 5y ago
  I get plenty of requests for static ipv4 from smb and home users.
  - abestic9 5y ago
    I could see that being down to IPv4 allocation issues, specifically CG-NAT or dynamic pools, that people want to avoid.
  - soultrees 5y ago
    You get plenty of requests for the static part of it and less so for actual ipv4. If there was an option for static ipv6 then people would also request that instead. Static IPs have use cases that people in the wild need, however I don’t think anyone cares if it’s ipv4 or ipv6.
    - toast0 5y ago
      I mean, I'd love static both, but I'm going to ask for static v4 first, because I can always run a tunnel for static v6.
      - taneliv 5y ago
        Why couldn't you do it the other way around? Run a tunnel for static IPv4 over IPv6.
        toast0 5y ago
        Because there's not a mainstream (and free) tunnel broker for IPv4.
karmanyaahm 5y ago
Probably a different ISP, but, see this thread (and many others) https://twitter.com/karmanyaahm/status/1426552449314299919 https://twitter.com/karmanyaahm/status/1426552449314299919 with requests from 2011-2021
mrweasel 5y ago
How many customers directly ask for an IPv4? If ISP wait for the average consumer to ask for IPv6, it will never get implemented.
elktea 5y ago
wait until you're out of v4 and people's stuff breaks due to CGNAT
robolange 5y ago
If we're going for anecdata, I called Comcast Business a couple of months ago and asked about IPv6 support. The sales rep asked, "What is IPv6?"
fhars 5y ago
I never mentioned IPv6 to my ISP either, I have no problems with the /56 they give me by default.

I work at an ISP and not a single customer has ever even mentioned IPv6. There zero demand on the residential side.

by eppp 5y ago

I work at an ISP and not a single customer has ever even mentioned IPv6. There zero demand on the residential side.

mgarfias 5y ago

I’ve begged my isp to get on it

eppp 5y ago
I just got a /32 from ARIN to start implementing it on our network but it is by no stretch of the imagination worth the effort. I will probably have at least 40 hours into testing it and no increased revenue will be realized by it. Maybe IPv6 was the the right thing to due but the practical implementation is ridiculous.
- toast0 5y ago
  I doubt you'll see more revenue from it. If you're low on v4 addresses and you're willing to put (some) subscribers behind CGNAT, then inplementing v6 should reduce the number of v4 addresses you need and thus reduce your costs. If you give each subscriber an IPv4, then yeah, added operational cost, no revenue, maybe added capital cost depending on your equipment. Not much upside for a small ISP. In a competitive market, v6 can get you some points with the technical folks, but not many.
- kalleboo 5y ago
  There's not much upside for a legacy network that already has all the IPv4 it needs, but an upstart ISP will do well starting with IPv6 and layering CGNAT IPv4 on top. With 30% of the Alexa top 500 supporting IPv6 (and a lot of the top traffic sites like Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Netflix etc) it will reduce the amount of IPv4 you need to buy
- elktea 5y ago
  have you seen the cost of v4 recently?

gorgoiler 5y ago

My experience was that my ISP (major cell provider) silently moved everyone to IPv6, did DNS64 for most legacy stuff, and provided RFC1918 IPv4 NAT for anything else. No customer demand was involved, I imagine.

eppp 5y ago
That is one of the most disappointing aspects of ipv6. Even if you implement it perfectly you are still stuck with having to deal with ipv4 with no end in sight. Had backward compatibility been a primary goal, is there any doubt we would have made vastly more progress at this point 20+ years later?
- azernik 5y ago
  It's an address space expansion. You were always going to need hacky stuff for legacy clients, and for any service that wants to be reachable by said clients.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    > It's an address space expansion Exactly this. There is no "backwards compatible" way to have more addresses in a protocol that's wedded to 32-bit addresses. That's just how numbers work. The protocol with a larger address space will be incompatible, and so anybody who seems surprised/ disappointed hasn't even really thought about the problem.

betaby 5y ago

I worked at an (residential) ISP and not a single customer has ever asked about IPv4 or IPv9 or any IPvX. They were buying 'Internet' or even 'Wi-Fi'. Now, on on the DSL reports there are plenty of questions 'When will ISP_X will support IPV6'

eppp 5y ago
I get plenty of requests for static ipv4 from smb and home users.
- abestic9 5y ago
  I could see that being down to IPv4 allocation issues, specifically CG-NAT or dynamic pools, that people want to avoid.
- soultrees 5y ago
  You get plenty of requests for the static part of it and less so for actual ipv4. If there was an option for static ipv6 then people would also request that instead. Static IPs have use cases that people in the wild need, however I don’t think anyone cares if it’s ipv4 or ipv6.
  - toast0 5y ago
    I mean, I'd love static both, but I'm going to ask for static v4 first, because I can always run a tunnel for static v6.
    - taneliv 5y ago
      Why couldn't you do it the other way around? Run a tunnel for static IPv4 over IPv6.
      - toast0 5y ago
        Because there's not a mainstream (and free) tunnel broker for IPv4.

karmanyaahm 5y ago

Probably a different ISP, but, see this thread (and many others) https://twitter.com/karmanyaahm/status/1426552449314299919 https://twitter.com/karmanyaahm/status/1426552449314299919 with requests from 2011-2021

mrweasel 5y ago

How many customers directly ask for an IPv4? If ISP wait for the average consumer to ask for IPv6, it will never get implemented.

elktea 5y ago

wait until you're out of v4 and people's stuff breaks due to CGNAT

robolange 5y ago

If we're going for anecdata, I called Comcast Business a couple of months ago and asked about IPv6 support. The sales rep asked, "What is IPv6?"

fhars 5y ago

I never mentioned IPv6 to my ISP either, I have no problems with the /56 they give me by default.