VM IPv6 plans?
 

I've just updated the firmware on my TP-Link WDR4300 dual band gigabit router (firmware date 25-12-2012) and noticed that the device now has IPv6 support :)

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if anyone has info on Virgin Media’s plans for implementing IPv6 across their network?

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Being looked into but no immediate plans to switch as VM have enough IPv4 addresses for the medium term

Part of the plans will what to do with all the customers on non-IPv6 compatible kit that VM have supplied

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

seems all uk isps have a bad attitude on this, as its not just needed for when their own ip's run out but also to allow access to ipv6 websites.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Of which almost all will also have a IPv4 site too

Switching on IPv6 itself is the reasonably easy bit. As with any new technology, it's the support that costs i.e

• Swap out all non-IPv6 kit so that all customers get the same level of service,
• Leave IPv6 to new customers only,
• If you have IPv6 compatible kit right through to the customer, how do you then support customers who's own kit isn't compatible?
• What extra support issues come with IPv6 that don't with IPv4 so that your staff have to be trained?

etc.

Not denying that VM do have a need to do it, but they've got to balance cost effectiveness against technological need

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Staff training and VM really lol lol

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Yes, really.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Just because it's optional doesn't mean you shouldn't support it.

At the beginning at least there is no reason to need to provide kit, support or equipment swaps. If VM force themselves to do it, it's their own fault.

Many providers provide IPv6 on a "self supported" basis. It's there and it works - if you can figure out how to use it yourself.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I think you're underestimating the potentially huge support cost moving to IPv6 will cause. As has been mentioned, most people don't have IPv6 capable equipment (If it's Virgin supplied, the only things that support IPv6 are the Ambit 300*, the Superhub* and I THINK the D-link router - that's it) and more importantly, quite a lot of equipment will likely need to be configured to use it. It's a huge undertaking on Virgin's part and there's practically no benefit to it right now.

Such as what? Seriously, is there a site that's only accessible via IPv6 that's actually worth visiting right now? Don't get me wrong, it IS a necessary move and will have to be done at some point, but I really don't think the internet has been segregated like that just yet.

I would like to think that part of switching to the Superhub is to make the IPv6 upgrade path easier. Could be wishful thinking on my part.

Mostly, I just want it so I can assign a unique IP to every device I own.


* If I recall correctly, IPv6 support is part of the requirements for a DOCSIS3 device.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

No I was not I was just joking hence the lol lol ;)

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Hi... and thanks to all who have chipped in with info... interesting stuff.

I wonder just how many IPv4 addresses are actually available to the likes of VM and how long they might actually last?

From that question I guess might spring a further question that is, "will there come a tipping point for companies like VM when they have little or no other choice than to actually start implementing IPv6 and how far off is that... months/years?"

Given that we all now seem to have multiple devices in the house all wanting access to our local networks and beyond, it would seem that the need for IPv6 is creping up on us ever faster?

Hopefully more companies like TP-Link will start including as standard, or making available via firmware updates, IPv6 capability in their products.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

They could do more NAT based tricks, have a IP4 to IP6 gateway/proxy site, or all sorts of things to put off doing. It should have been last year or the year before that IP6 was considered in relation to customers equipment. One would hope firmware updates to the superhub and future hubs could enable IP6 in the future...surely someone has considered all of these things when deciding on equipment. Considering how long customers have had the original VM modem, getting IP6 ready equipment out there now would be beneficial.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I'm certainly not an expert when it comes to networking stuff, so take this with a pinch of salt. However, Virgin owns 5 large blocks, the IP's beginning 62, 80, 81, 82 and 213.

Source: http://help.virginmedia.com/system/s...RTICLE_ID=2825

Each of those blocks has just over 16million usable IPs (16,777,214 I believe is the precise number), ranging from say 62.0.0.1 to 62.255.255.255. Now there are some lost in there, as you'd never give 62.0.0.1 to a customer and Virgin's own equipment will take up some, but 16million is a good place to start. Times that by 5 and you get roughly 80million IP addresses. That's a lot more than Virgin will ever need, even in the long term as there's just not that many people in the UK. So basically, Virgin won't run out any time soon and the move to IPv6 will be more about offering services and the ability to connect to non-IPv4 sites.

I believe they have so many IP's mostly due to the way Virgin was the culmination of various cable networks merging together over the years - NTL and Blueyonder, for example.

Some routers have built in support for 6to4 (or 4to6) tunnelling, so realistically if anyone wanted IPv6 right now, they can.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

That is a lot of IP addresses but not all ISP's are that lucky and its a bit of a waste to have that many as a lot of other ISP's are running short of IP addresses. Yes there aren't 80 million people in the UK but a lot of people use more than one IP and fair enough a lot of people won't use any...but I really think more should be done to start using IPv6 and this isn't just Virgin that is dragging their feet.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

ISPs in some countries run NAT as standard and charge extra for an external IP. That said on the link given only says "Valid IP addresses" begin with the above.

VM certainly do not own every IP address beginning with that number. 62.80.81.123 (actually all of 62.80.80.0 - 62.80.95.255) for example, is owned by BT Prague and 80.40.0.0 - 80.47.255.255 is owned by Tiscali. 213.45.0.0 to 213.45.255.255 is owned by Telecom Italia. 81.45.6.0 - 81.45.13.255 is Telefonica Spain. 82.224.8.0 - 82.224.9.255 is Proxad France. Then again, my old VM connection had an 92.232.0.0/13 IP and that's not even in the list at all.

In fact, just picking at random out of the above ranges, I'm yet to come across a single one that *is* owned by VM. Statistically that would suggest VM own less than 20% of them. VM's routing servers only announce a total of 9,883,392 IPs across all ranges. That includes all their own infrastructure and all services/IPs they provide for other businesses, as well as all companies that connect through VM, so not all are available to consumer broadband.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I don't think anyone's going to argue with that, but the urge to jump to IPv6 simply won't be due to running out of IP addresses (For VM, at least). It'll come from people wanting to access and communicate with people and services that are only on IPv6.

This is also true, I wasn't sure how to look that kind of information up. Suffice it to say though, Virgin isn't running out any time soon.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

82.25.128.0 - 82.25.143.255 Is one of the 82 ranges assigned to NTL. Not sure if they have all the 82.25 but it looks like they may as this is another 82.25.0.0 - 82.25.15.255 but registered to a different area

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

82.0.0.0 - 82.47.255.255 is VM in the 82.x.x.x/8 range, which is 18.75% of it.

As I say, 9.8 million is approximately the total of all VM's IPs that are currently useable, including all non-broadband uses.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Seems reasonable. Now how many customers do they have? I believe it's somewhere between 6 and 7million?

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Including mobile, business, commercial, wholesale, local, further and higher education, leased lines and providing all of 3, Orange and T-Mobile's network, M2M, smart meters, and the London underground? No idea, but I'd guess a lot.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Looks like Plusnet are trialling carrier grade NAT for exactly that reason.

http://community.plus.net/forum/inde...,110652.0.html
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5...addresses.html

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

It's IPv5 that I feel sorry for! :)

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

this whole issue is kicking off now as plusnet have announced a trial of carrier grade NAT ouch, a huge fail as they havent even started on ipv6 yet.

It does seem uk isp's have their heads stuck in the sand on ipv6 and simply refuse to invest.

Will VM do the same, wait until their ipv4 is critical then announce some kind of idea to extend ipv4 rather than go dual stack.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I don't think you understand, it's going to be necessary for all providers to do some kind of NAT eventually. Even if the world switched over to IPv6, there's still millions of pieces of software that rely on an IPv4 address - such as the PS3 or the 360. They can't do IPv6. Plusnet trailing this isn't a sign of failure, Virgin and Sky will have to trial it as well at some point, even if they deploy IPv6.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

They just require a software update and since they are subject to compulsory automatic software updates in order to be useable online anyway, that's a non-issue.

Still, NAT is already standard on ISPs in many countries, and on *all* mobile ISPs in the UK. Most educational establishments also use NAT as do halls, student residences, etc.

I would say, in fact, that consumer ISPs providing routable IPv4 addresses are the exception from the norm. The vast majority of internet providers and internet devices use NAT - coffee shops, hotels, airports, libraries, schools, universities, mobile providers, phones, smartmeters, small/medium businesses, trains, underground, etc. - all predominately provide NAT'd connections to the end user.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

It's nowhere near as simple as that. Every single game on those systems would need to be updated in order to facilitate online playing as they mostly use a P2P model that is not set up for IPv6 in the slightest. This is probably why Microsoft and Sony have never bothered to add IPv6 support thus far - because it would only be useful for a select few games (new titles and old titles that publishers were willing to patch, which isn't cheap).
Never mind that the console itself won't be able to connect to download the update without a valid IPv4 address (admittedly this can be somewhat mitigated with off-line updates, such as those on a disk).

I dare say the next-gen consoles will support IPv6 out of the box.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

its a sofware limitation.

once isp's start moving, other things will follow suit, more and more websites go dual stack every day but until broadband isp's get moving it will be a slow moving thing, once isp's get their act together everything else will follow, but the attitude of oh the devices dont support it so why bother is very wrong.

VM and other isp's should have been deploying ipv6 alongside ipv4 long before today.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I'm not disagreeing with that, what I'm saying is that nobody's going to go back and update all of the software from the last 30+ years. Hell, nobody's going to update the vast majority of the software from just 5 years ago. There'll be games released this year that won't have IPv6 support and still won't 10 years from now. That's why it'll be important to run dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 for a long time (even if the IPv4 stack is NAT'd to hell).

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

updating software is trivial. and 30 year old software is something for those dev's to worry about not yourself an isp.

A long term future is probably every end user still been able to use an ipv4 ipfor legacy alongside ipv6, but those people with ip ranges been moved over to ipv6 this will free up many ip's, many datacentres do this already, they give a base ipv4 but additional ips are ipv6, and I have datacentres trying to reclaim ip's of me as well. For this reason I am dual stacking alot of services I host now as eventually those services will have to be ipv6 only. I also am testing ipv6 on my home rig although I can only do this via tunneling due to the fact I cant get ipv6 of either of my isp's.

The dual stacking for long time as you put it should have started 10 years ago then CG nat wouldnt have been close to been needed, plus I think wont be needed is isp's manage ips well like removing of customers with multiple ips instead of natting people with single ips.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about how the future will pan out (regarding dual stacking and such), however I think you're completely underestimating the software issue. IT's not hard to update software, but the same logic can be said for why Windows ensures so much backwards compatibility - because people just don't update their software. It costs too much and the older the software is, the more it costs. IPv6 isn't an evolution of IPv4, it's completely different and would need to be coded from scratch in most software.
Then look at the (prime example) of games - Microsoft charges to release title updates, so which publishers are liable to pay developers to update the code, then go through certification and all that? It just isn't going to happen. It's actually just easier to stick to IPv4, even if it's NAT'd. Likely what'll happen in future is everyone will have IPv4 via NAT and if you need a dedicated IP, you can pay extra for it.
Eventually, you'll probably lose all IPv4 support until you specifically request it from your ISP. I don't think IPv4 will ever be totally eradicated, it'll exist in some form for the next 50 years at least.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Kushan you scare mongering tho.

I am saying ipv6 dual stack now today, dont mess about just get on with it. To dual stack doesnt mean drop ipv4, it will still exist to allow for people and companies to migrate. Then when enough mainstream supports ipv6 then ipv4 could be possibly slowly phased out.

Instead I expect VM will do a plusnet, do some kind of carrier grade NAT before even announcing ipv6, in fact I wouldnt be surprised if uk isp's just think of profit and standardise carrier grade nat so they can charge for normal ip's as a premium feature. That would be typical uk fashion of making money.

aaisp eg. have noted they expect to never need to use carrier grade nat, instead they will just claw back ip's from those with ranges assigned to them and not in use.

I can understand clawing back ip's from those with large allocations, but using carrier grade nat on customers with only one ip is just bad management.

Have VM eg. been lobbying microsoft etc. for changes? or just sitting back chilled as if nothing is a problem.

Whats so sad about all this its far easier to dual stack ipv6 than it is to rollout carrier grade NAT, so one has to wonder why plusnet have rolled out something more complex first.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I'm not scaremongering at all, in fact quite the opposite - I'm saying things that work now will still work in the future, there'll just be a few odd exceptions and certain hosting things will probably fall over to a degree.
I'm not disagreeing at all with what you're saying about IPv6 and how it should be rolled out sooner rather than later (in fact I wholeheartedly agree), I'm just saying that it'll be dual stack for a long, long time and Carrier Grade NAT is just inevitable for the IPv4 situation. You cannot realistically expect every single software vendor that there ever has, or ever will be, to update every single piece of software that has ever existed in order to use IPv6. Despite what you say, it's not trivial to do and even if it was, it's just utterly unrealistic to think it'll happen for even a majority of software. The easiest solution is to just roll out carrier-grade NAT across the ISPs that do run out (What choice do they have, anyway? You can either have a NAT'd IPv4 or no IPv4 at all - the former will work for most things, the latter will work for nothing except what has built in IPv6 support).

Essentially, all I'm saying is that rolling out both IPv6 and carrier grade NAT will be a necessity in the short term. As time goes on, the carrier-grade NAT will become less of an issue and most people will be ok to get shunted off IPv4 eventually, but there will always be a need for some level of IPv4 connectivity for some users. Not many, certainly not a majority, but some people will still need it.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

An ISP is concerned about providing a service to their customers. Updating software is not trivial and even less so when it's built into hard (aka firmware).

Just think about the proliferation of devices that are now out that offer internet enabled functionality - Smart phones, smart TVs, Bluray players, Internet Radios etc etc. Manufacturers of such devices will not be interested in upgrading such equipment, after all it's a sales opportunity for them! Consumers will be slow to replace such devices so, rightly or wrongly, it will be up to service providers to come up with solutions...

IPv4 will be here for some time yet, even if it's carried over IPv6 tunnels

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I know it will be because isp's have acted too late.

Do you not agree that waiting until ip allocation has ran out is too late?

What you not realising is when ipv6 is more heavily used eg. the average site is using ipv6 instead of ipv4, then ip's used to host ipv6 content will be unallocated, returned to ripe etc. and then they can be redistributed, it all has a knockon affect, ultimately there is no doomsday scenario where carrier grade nat is essential for an average broadband user unless its the path isp's deliberatly choose.

Equipment at this stage which does not support ipv6 would be considered obselete, nothing lasts forever. But the stage I am talking about is years from now, plenty of time for isps to roll out ipv6, but the problem is there is not even a hint of trials from any major uk isp. Whilst other countries are rolling them out already.

The uk body setup to manage ipv6 even wound itself up because the government couldnt even be bothered to dual stack its own websites.

sad state of affairs and a total embarrassement.

smart phones and tablets already support ipv6, as does any modern operating system which also means any pc or laptop that can run vista or newer.

Also firmware is software its not hardware. In fact many routers sold in the uk also already support ipv6, its usually isp supplied routers that have the function specifically removed at the isp's request, ironic given that isps are blaming router vendors.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Nobody's argunig that IPv6 takeup is slow and everyone's dragging their heels, but you're dismissing everything IPv4 as completely obsolete. Unfortunately, a lot of software and equipment is obsolete yet it's still widely used. IPv4 won't ever go anywhere, it'll just change to being the "fallback" mode if IPv6 is unavailable (for whatever reason - most likely because an application doesn't support it).

ISPs aren't the only ones to blame, though - everyone else that hosts content is. The big ones, Google, Facebook, etc. only enabled IPv6 support properly about a year ago. 99% of websites do not use IPv6 in any capacity so there has been no incentive for ISPs to upgrade yet. It's all going to come to a head at some point and us consumers will be the ones to suffer but none the less pinning it on just the ISPs is missing a large part of it.

Also, FYI Virgin are looking into IPv6. I don't know what the extent of it is, but there was definitely a significant amount of chatter on their Intranet about it when I was there. That was nearly 2 years ago.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I will wait and see before commenting further. Hopefully VM do the right thing and that is trial ipv6 asap on a dual stack setup.

and yes everyone was slow to get going but google and co are at least now dual stacking.

This is one of those things where it shouldnt be looked at as a business decision but rather whats good for the internet.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Sweet mother of God, don't tell Virgin that, they'll never roll it out.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Just spoke with a friend of mine who's a networking professional. He basically said that CGN is a "fail shortsighted solution", and that it always ends up costing them a lot more than they'd expect, as they need to reinvest in powerful, hideously expensive routers to hold all the NAT tables, or connections start getting dropped when they get old.

I'm not at his level when it comes to things like that, but I trust him, a lot.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

and he is most certianly right.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Yes. Yes he is. However, there's two sides to this - There's using CG-NAT to stave off having to use IPv6 and there's using it to share a limited number if IP addresses so people have some kind of access.

Now what Chrysalis is saying is correct - IPv6 is the ultimate solution and what EVERY ISP in the world should be enabling (And what they should have been enabling a good decade ago). Nobody's going to argue with that, certainly not me.

However, what I'm saying is that IPv4 will not be just "switched off" any time soon as far too many sites and services rely on it today. Let's say for the sake of argument that PlusNet ran out of IPv4 addresses TOMORROW, but also enabled IPv6 for everyone overnight. What would that be like?

Well, those who don't get an IPv4 address are going to be locked out of a solid 95% of the internet. They'll have access via IPv6 but they're otherwise screwed for the majority of sites and services. That's the real issue and it doesn't matter if they have IPv6 or not, so what PlusNet is doing here isn't wrong - they can't get more IPv4 addresses, it's just not going to happen so if they run out, what other options do they have?
Like I said "deploy IPv6!" is not the short-term answer, it needs to be done certainly and it should have been done by now but that still wouldn't help those without it.

Yes, it's going to be expensive but it's the best solution really.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Hi everyone

I have been looking through the thread and thought i'd add my twopence worth.

I believe VM have said on multiple occasions lately that they have enough IPv4 addresses for quite some time.

Routers that have not got dual stack firmware are obsolete now.

I was wondering if VM could set up as a tunnel broker for its customers allowing IPv6 access for those who want it?
When sufficient people are using IPv6 maybe tunnel 4 in 6 then.

I'm probably being a synical so and so when I say that an isp want like giving out 48 or 64 bit addresses because they cannot capatalise on the vast address space handed out.

I can see 6 being used commercially by companies with multiple subnets and us poor isp domestic customers getting the cast off of v4.

Anyway not trying to offend anyone here just voicing an opinion.

Bye

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Is there any news on Virgin Media's IPv6 plans?

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

My Asus RT-N66U supports IPv6.

Now I guess it act as a bridge between VM IPv6 service when launch and the IPv4 home network.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Afraid not; need IPv6 on home network too to use a native VM IPv6 service.

Trying to reach an IPv6 service from a computer that supports IPv4 only is like trying to reach someone else's RFC1918 addressed local network without a tunnel of some sort.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

To clarify what Igni is saying, IPv6 and IPv4 operate entirely alongside each other. How each works individually is different (so things you're used to such as DHCP are not the same) but basically when Virgin launches IPv6, your Asus should start dishing out IPv6 addresses to anything that's requesting one. Any PC running Vista or above, for example.

IPv6 is interesting because it's all based on the idea that things have multiple addresses. Kind of like how your PC will be on both 192.168.0.x and 127.0.0.1 at the same time, with IPv6, you will have the link-local (equivalent to 127.0.0.1) address of ::1, you'll have a self-assigned address beginning with fe80 (i.e. fe80::aabb:ccdd:1234:5678), equivalent to a 169.x.x.x IP, then you might have a local IPv6 address if your router is advertising them, beginning with fd (i.e. fd2::aabb:ccdd:1234:5678), equivelant to a 192.x.x.x address, then you'll have the globally routable address that comes from Virgin (probably beginning with a 2, i.e. 2a03::...). However, you'll have all of these at the same time.

Any machine on your network looking to communicate with another machine (on your network or on the internet) will first try to use whatever IPv6 addresses it has, going from most private to most public. If none of those are routable, it'll then try IPv4.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Updates about IPv6 deployments by UK ISPs - Wednesday, 20 April 2016 from 14:00 to 17:00 (BST)

http://www.ipv6.org.uk/blog/

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I don't get why VM are being so secretive about it. Their rep in the video barely gave any useful information.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

because they don't want to admit they are way behind the curve and it is going to be another 3 years before they catch up to BT and Sky.

Edit: I have just watched it and VM should be ashamed of themselves. They like to talk flap on about technology use terms like docsis 3 in their advertising but I can honestly say that I could have done that presentation more professionally and with more detail. Even if there weren't any new announcements they could have done a quick recap of what they have done, what they are doing and how things are going. Sky and BT's presentations were excellent and make VM look like a bunch of monkeys. It looks like somebody has walked into the janitors closet in the morning and said "who wants a paid day out to a conference and we'll give you double time for it".

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I somehow don't think it's going to be that long given CMTS are running IPv6. Keep an eye on the other LGI territories for some clue as to timelines.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

You know that the thing you're both watching is from last year, right? There's another one later this week:

Perhaps wishful thinking on my part, but let's see what they have to say first.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

VM's main problem is that for IPv6 to work those piles of excrement in people's homes have to behave themselves.

Given those struggle with DOCSIS if it's not presented as they like new IP stacks can be a challenge.

Superhub firmware, as people will have seen, struggles enough with IPv4.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

It's not just the superhubs, there's any number of devices that have poor IPv6 support (potentially) that might break the second Virgin enables IPv6 on the hub. As you say, the UBR's and such have had IPv6 support for a long time, it's the CPE onwards that's the issue.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I bet the SH1 is going to love IPv6!!!!

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Everything past the Superhubs isn't VM's problem, which is nice.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I'm sure all the customers will be reasonable about that.... ;)

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Exactly. Say it's not Virgin's problem, but if they flick a switch and boot 5% of customers offline as a result, it'll very quickly become Virgin's problem. At the very least, Virgin has to account for these issues and have agents trained on how to deal with them (Even if it's just disabling IPv6 on a device).

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I'm not sure how customer routers are going to fall offline as a result of VM enabling IPv6.

If the customer-owned routers don't support it they just won't send the DHCPv6 request?

The issue with the Superhubs is more that VM will want them migrated to IPv6 on their HFC-side interface, the major point of IPv6 for cable companies is to allow for more addresses than RFC 1918 allows for HFC-side addresses, so they need them to support it.

Zero point in VM deploying it if their owned CPE don't support it, hence the dependency.

A full migration to IPv6 would allow for clean, centralised management of all Liberty Global cable territories without workarounds to compensate as there would no longer be RFC 1918 IPv4 address overlap between them forcing it.

Sorry if I'm missing something, which I might be!

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Obviously can't comment on the HFC side of things, but on the consumer side there have been any number of issues with IPv6. It seems that although quite a lot of routers support IPv6, their implementation is broken in some capacity - they don't route properly, they drop packets, or they just have no proper security in mind.

Imagine this: Pure IPv4 network is running just fine. Then a router suddenly gets an IPv6 lease and starts broadcasting that to the other devices on the network. Those devices get an IPv6 address, so naturally next time they lookup google.com, they see the AAAA record, try to connect via IPv6 only to have the router drop the packet. Suddenly, Google no longer works, all from just enabling IPv6.

I hope the situation is better these days, but certainly a couple of years ago there was a mess. I believe (can't cite a source though) that Vista's initial IPv6 support was also in some way broken, though I hope it has been fixed since then - still, customers aren't always known for keeping up to date. All they will see is one day it works fine, the next it doesn't.

Also, it needs to be done.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

You are going back more than a couple of years ago with the IPv6 problem in Vista Kush. That was sorted out at least 5 years ago that I know of and possibly even earlier. The same can be said for XP.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Oh yeah, I have no doubt it was patched a long time ago. What I am saying is it just takes the customer to have not updated and they've suddenly got an issue that was caused by Virgin enabling IPv6 (NOTE: I'm not saying it's Virgin's fault, just that the customer will see it that way). That's just one example, there's any number of broken devices out there, so Virgin can't really flip the switch network wide, it'll have to be a slow rollout and manage impact.

I don't think the vast majority of customers will be affected but even 1% is still tens of thousands.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

I very much doubt it will be as high as 1%'

0.000005% perhaps.

I should imagine most of those will have the SH1.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

The next IPv6 Council annual meeting will be held at the IET in London on 31st October, 2016.

Status update from Virgin Media on IPv6 from Daryl Tanner

http://www.ipv6.org.uk/blog/

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

TL;DR Work in progress, needed for VoIP project, deliverable once the crappy old CPE and CMTS are gone, and the issues with the always reliable Superhubs resolved. :)

The core network has been IPv6 for ages, the new Arris and Cisco kit customers are being connected to is good to go for IPv6, just CPE and OSS holding things up.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

lets see if they can embarrass themselves like they did last year

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

They have ample IPv4 space and don't really care about IPv6 especially. They'll have IPv6 running when they need it.

Nerds can always use 3rd parties if they have IPv6-only resources they need to reach, or if they need the IPv6 addresses to maintain nerd-ons.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Why would VM miss the opportunity to advertise a "Free IPv6" upgrade followed by another 10% price hike? If it's gonna cost them don't think for a second we won't foot the bill.

Re: VM IPv6 plans?
 

Would be nice to have it all the same, geeks like me can dick about with it.