5 ms·
It's bewildering to me the number of large American ISP's that just don't (or won't?) support IPv6 for one reason or another. I dumped CenturyLink about a year
by IntelMiner 3y ago
It's bewildering to me the number of large American ISP's that just don't (or won't?) support IPv6 for one reason or another. I dumped CenturyLink about a year ago over it (among other things with their wretched fiber service)
Of course those clowns proudly boasted about participating in "world IPv6 day" *12 years ago* but all their services and websites are still IPv4 only
For all of Comcast's innumerable faults and absolutely parasitic rent-seeking, at least they offer IPv6. Even if it's "only" a /64
- mort96 3y agoWhat even is the advantage for an ISP to offer v6? Consumers aren't demanding it. Everything works on v4. And even if consumers were demanding it, most of those consumers don't have a choice in ISP company.
- minimaul 3y agoIt’s cheaper to do v6 & CGNAT v4 at scale than just CGNAT v4 or buying v4 addresses. Buying v4 addresses isn’t sustainable and drives the prices up long term. CGNAT v4 at scale requires hefty and expensive translation boxes that have to keep growing with traffic volume. Native v6 immediately takes the majority of your traffic - most of the big CDNs & content providers like Netflix support v6 already.
- mort96 3y agoThat's fair. So ISPs have a potential incentive to provide v6. I wonder why they're not then. Clearly it's not a very big incentive.
- minimaul 3y agoAt small ISP scales, the cost of CGNAT isn't too high. Larger ISPs tend to be longer lived and often have large pools of v4 allocations that they didn't pay market rates for, so are happy to sweat long term.
- supertrope 3y agoIt depends. One tribal ISP blames Roku's lack of IPv6 support for large expenditures. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
- ftth_finland 3y agoThe incentives are mixed. Regardless of if an ISP offers IPv6 or not, they still need IPv4. Thus if you are small and/or have enough IPv4 address space, IPv6 is just an additional cost and burden. The support burden of IPv6 isn’t trivial when you do not control the end user devices. IPv6 bandwidth isn’t cheaper nor more performant. From a business perspective, the only thing you get from IPv6 is a larger address space and a smaller need for (CG)NAT. There is an incentive to deploy IPv6 if your (CG)NAT costs and/or the costs to acquire more IPv4 addresses is larger than the costs to deploy and support IPv6. The tipping point is different for each ISP. It also depends on the regulator environment whether you are forced to deploy IPv6 or not.
- rekoil 3y agoWhy would consumers ever demand it? 99% of customers don't understand anything about the TCP/IP stack...
- rekoil 3y agoIs it really that surprising? Here in Sweden many ISPs have begun charging for being assigned a public IPv4 address. I'm sure since it's happening here now it's probably been happening in the US for a long time. If IPv6 actually became ubiquitous enough to rely on then people wouldn't have a use for IPv4 addresses, and they don't have a leg to stand on charging people money for an IPv6 block. It's not surprising to me, it's worrisome.
- ectospheno 3y agoComcast will pass out multiple /64's. Most default dhcpcd configs on the internet don’t ask for them.
- dmm 3y ago> Most default dhcpcd configs on the internet don’t ask for them. For anyone interested in this it's called dhcpv6 prefix delegation: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/IPv6#Prefix_delegation_(DHCPv6-PD) https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/IPv6#Prefix_delegation_(DHC...
- hackeraccount 3y agoMan, they should really be giving me a /56 instead of a /60. Grumble grumble.
- philjohn 3y agoI'm now realising how lucky I am my ISP hands out a /48 prefix allocation.