On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:45 PM Josh Luthman <j...@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 < > tmitch...@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....@nanog.org> On Behalf >> Of >> Tim Howe >> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:40 PM >> To: Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>; nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported >> >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:46:56 -0500 >> Josh Luthman <j...@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 >> >> >>
