In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Yes, but things are different than the 90s, for starters IANA have reached IPv4 exhaustion and AFAIK even Comcast - one of the largest, and most hated, ISPs in the US is rolling out IPv6 across its whole broadband network(may even have finished?). Why shouldn't customers have the option of IPv6? Soon we'll have the Internet of things and that'll add more impetus for addresses. If small ISPs, like Aquiss for example, can pull their finger out then how about Zen?

Comcast didn't deploy IPv6 because customers wanted it, they deployed it because they ran out of RFC1918 space for the cable CPE on their network.

In reply to a post by AndrewW:

Until a number of large sites make it clear of their intention to disable IPV4 usage then there will be no need for IPV6.
When that time happens then the migration will be swift, and some ISPs who do not have a good plan in place will be in trouble. I suspect Zen would have done a lot of work in the back ground , and are purchasing IPV6 compliant devices, but have chosen to put on the the deployed project.

Why would they do that? They already have IPv4 address space so will continue to use it until IPv4 is phased out. They're not going to cut their noses off!

The problems start when new sites or users can only get IPv6 addresses.

Think you just answered your own question. There is no reason to go in ipv6.
Once the majority of new users only use ipv6, then the ipv4 services will be dropped. Just like Zen are doing with the usenet service. Not enough users, so they are killing it.

In reply to a post by AndrewW:

Think you just answered your own question. There is no reason to go in ipv6.
Once the majority of new users only use ipv6, then the ipv4 services will be dropped. Just like Zen are doing with the usenet service. Not enough users, so they are killing it.

On the contrary. There is an extremely good reason to go dual-stack, there is no reason to migrate solely to IPv6 at the moment. There will always be a long transition period.

It's called being prepared. You musn't consider just the users, you have to consider the sites and services as well. What happens when you need to access that IPv6-only site or service? You can't, just because your ISP isn't prepared.

Usenet is not a fundamental requirement for use of the Internet, IP addresses are - apples and pears.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Comcast didn't deploy IPv6 because customers wanted it, they deployed it because they ran out of RFC1918 space for the cable CPE on their network.

Are you referring to the "RIPE 54"(?) document? It does also say they were allocated a large IPv4 block(which I assume wasn't enough) and also -

High Speed Internet
� customer service remains IPv4 for now
� May add IPv6 service in later phase

So there were no hard plans to give Internet customers IPv6 back in 2007(?), despite using IPv6 elsewhere, it was a matter of choice - it appears they didn't have to do it if they didn't want to.

Zeb99 agreed, if you read my earlier posts that what i said. However running dual stacks costs and the amount of time this is done for is will need to be limited, hence my comment relating to the Usenet server.

No one has mentioned one large and popular site which is IPV6 ONLY or planning to run that way.

Also i have not heard of any ISP's only offering IPV6 only as they cant get IPV4 addresses.

NAT and proxies have been the technologies which helped to limit the growth of ipv6

NAT and proxies have been the technologies which helped to limit the growth of ipv6

Not entirely accurate. They are technologies, or rather "hacks", that have been developed to address the short-falls of IPv4, thus diluting the demand for IPv6.

I mostly agree with Zen's stance on the topic, as much as I detest it. The reality is IPv6 will not be used until it really needs to be used. So until the day arrives when a customer needs an 8 IP address netblock, but can't get that because they (Zen) have run out of IPv4 address space, there will be no drive at all to use IPv6. Should that day arrive and they don't have IPv6 ready to go, that will be their downfall; as zeb99 said, "it's called being prepared".

Also, the use of IPv4/6 tunnels is no big deal. It's yet another hack, just like NAT and proxies are. Provided the customer's end point has at least one uniquely routable IPv4 address, that's enough to quickly provision a /48 IPv6 network and hook it up to the rest of the IPv6 network with minimal fuss and technological barriers.

As zeb99 has also said, "there will always be a long transition period". The Internet is an organic network, from inception to present day. It will always evolve with its users encountering problems and inventing solutions to those problems over extended periods of time. NAT and proxies have served us well leading out of the 20th and into the 21st century, but these technologies will diminish as newer/better ones are preferred, ie. IPv6, and all that is possible without having NAT in the way.

Edited by deleted (Mon 02-Jun-14 14:12:14)

In reply to a post by mixt:

The reality is IPv6 will not be used until it really needs to be used. So until the day arrives when a customer needs an 8 IP address netblock, but can't get that because they (Zen) have run out of IPv4 address space, there will be no drive at all to use IPv6. Should that day arrive and they don't have IPv6 ready to go, that will be their downfall; as zeb99 said, "it's called being prepared".

As an IT Manager I'd like to have IPv6 on my Zen FTTC to play with and gain experience. I suspect that nothing will happen and then suddenly a new service people want will be IPv6 only and then things will change very quickly. What that might be and when it might happen I have no idea!

I'm not referring to that, however as Comcast were deploying IPv6 to the edge of the network anyway there was virtually no additional work required to deploy to customer devices too.

Nothing to do with a shortage of public addresses at all but given they were deploying dual-stack for the CPE it made sense to supply to customers too as part of the same project and be done with it.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Nothing to do with a shortage of public addresses at all but given they were deploying dual-stack for the CPE it made sense to supply to customers too as part of the same project and be done with it.

You are tying IPv6 rollout for devices to rollout for Internet customers, for which they had no definite plans at the start. According to the doc the devices were being dealt with in 2006/2007 - press reports suggest Comcast IPv6 rollout for Internet users was started around 2012. That suggests that the link between the two, while there, is not strong(five years difference). It would probably have been easier to be lazy and just leave Internet users with IPv4 connectivity alone especially since Comcast are considered one of the worst companies in America for customer satisfaction, which is my point.