Re: V6 still not supported

[Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>]

So you guys keep combining IPv4 and CGNAT.  These two things are not the
same.  They do not require each other.  If you're small, you get space
straight from ARIN (I got mine in January 2022).  If you're big, buy a
block (after completing an ARIN ticket!)  If you don't want to pay for a
big v4 block, then do the cheaper thing:  v6.  But you're still deploying
v4 anyway, it'll just be with (CG)NAT.

For me, I see 0 value in v6.  I do see customer issues and I have
experienced v6 (dual stack) issues myself.  So when I have customers
demanding I get them FTTH every day and 0 customers demanding I get v6,
which do you think I'm going to do?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:11 PM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.
> >
>
> Asserting that IPv6 shouldn't be a priority because 'nobody asks for it'
> is specious. What if customers saw Cloudflare's "isbgpsafeyet" site and
> demented you stop running BGP because it's "unsafe" ? Is that a valid
> reason?
>
> Customers care about 1 thing only : Does it work when I want to use it, or
> not. And a lot of ISPs have learned difficult lessons in the last couple
> years when the small handful of customers who would complain that their
> work VPN didn't work behind the CGNAT boxes they ran turned into a heck of
> a lot MORE customers complaining.
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:48 PM Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>
> wrote:
>
> > ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
> >
> > Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> > > > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
> > >
> > > I completely agree.
> > >
> > > I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning,
> > > repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.
> > >
> > > But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has been for
> > > the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no excuse for
> > > not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.
> > >
> > > > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing
> > > > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering symmetrical
> > > > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON deployment. No
> > > > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a person who
> > > > even knew what it was.
> > >
> > > I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON provider.  At
> > > least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is and know
> > > that it's on their future list without even being in planing / testing
> > > phase.
> > >
> > > > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no plans for it.
> > >
> > > ....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Grant. . . .
> > > unix || die