60M : VM IPv6 plans?

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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.

[ferretuk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

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

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by ferretuk

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

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.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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.

[Chrysalis]

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.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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.

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

[Milambar]

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.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Milambar

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.

and he is most certianly right.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Milambar

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.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

and he is most certianly right.

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.

[MJPS]

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

[tdadyslexia]

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

[Hom3r]

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

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.

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.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

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.

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.

[Martin_D]

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

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