IPv6 is optional according to ASA and OFCOM

As we know, IPv6 is mandated to replace IPv4 and has been for several years - IPv4 was declared to be in obsolesence phaseout stages in 2015 with IPv6 part of the official Internet core since 2012

After finding that I can't reach increasing numbers of IPv6-only facilities and getting nowhere with my provider, I filed complaints with both OFCOM and the ASA on the basis that as IPv6 is a core Internet protocol, any company claiming to be an ISP and not providing it is engaging in misleading advertising.

Furthermore, I contended that companies which don't provide IPv6 are breaching the BSG code of open Internet practice, inasmuch as it is effectively an arbitrary filter on legally accessable internet content.

I pointed out that the companies in question HAVE IPv6 internally and up to their edge routers, but simply haven't bothered switching it on to consumers - and that they've been making misleading statements to users that "we're working on it, it'll be ready soon" for the last 8-12 years.


The ASA rejected that complaint on the basis that: Most consumers wouldn't consider IPv6 as part of their purchase decision, therefore it won't affect what ISP they go with. (I had put it to them that they SHOULDN'T HAVE TO)

OFCOM have rejected it on the basis that IPv6 is entirely optional in the UK and they regard IPv4 as sufficient.


Clearly there needs to be a paradigm shift forced on the "regulators" to make them face reality.

And who should enforce that "paradigm shift"? Ofcom believe it isn't a requirement in the UK which means I guess you need to lobby your MP/parliament to get it made into a legal requirement.

At present only techies have any real idea about IPv6 and why it is needed. The industry keeps finding new ways to keep the world running on IPv4 and so most consumers just don't have a need for it.

Most content that is available via v6 is also available via v4 because the providers know that a large number of consumers don't have the option. If we got to a point where Facebook, Instagram or Amazon weren't available on v4 then customers might notice but until then there is no real big shift. Most companies from what I see aren't making internal moves to v6 because the path has been made more painful that it could have been and there is little business benefit.

Which massed appeal services are IPv6 only today?

In reply to a post by Stoatwblr:

After finding that I can't reach increasing numbers of IPv6-only facilities

What are these facilities that one might assume don't want most people to be able to contact them?

There are ISPs that provide IPv6, and there are technical solutions to access IPv6 resources over IPv4 - e.g. I use a L2TP service to obtain static IPv4 and IPv6 addresses over a 4G connection.
I would expect anyone sophisticated enough to require IPv6 would seek out such an ISP or other solution.

I'm starting to think I'm missing out but really don't know what I'm missing out on

IPv6 has been replacing IPv4 for as long as I can remember but I'm not aware of anything important that's only accessible via IPv6 (I'm sure someone will know of something that is).

I suspect some of the dark web. Not aware of a single mainstream site that is v6 only (mainly because it couldn't be mainstream if it was v6 only).

EDIT : Wow - this site purports to have a list of ipv6 only sites in order to get people to move to ipv6. They've managed to get up to the heady heights of 9 sites listed.

Edited by ian72 (Wed 04-Dec-19 16:17:15)

That's giving me a 404 error Ian.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That's giving me a 404 error Ian.

Link looks like its got an unnecessary /q on the end.

Thanks dect .

I would have thought the list of IPv6 only sites would be somewhat longer than that one - yes, I can access them all.... I have had ipv6 for some years on Sky and more recently BT and they at least do offer it to everybody even though their support people know nothing about it. I have also enabled ipv6 on my websites and do see many access it via ipv6. I would have thought by now at nearly 2020 most of the mainstream ISPs would offer it but it seems not.

In reply to a post by ian72:

EDIT : Wow - this site purports to have a list of ipv6 only sites in order to get people to move to ipv6. They've managed to get up to the heady heights of 9 sites listed.

Can't see anything there that I'd call life-changing if I couldn't access it

But it seems a pity that those "in charge" (or at least, with influence) aren't a little more forward-thinking.

In reply to a post by billford:

Can't see anything there that I'd call life-changing if I couldn't access it

Try this.

In reply to a post by busterboy:

Try this.

Ahh... I should have said- I used Ian's link edited to dect's suggestion, so that's where I went... my bad, sorry about that

That's a shame, top marks for effort though.

I enable the Trex teredo tunnel occasionally if I need IPv6, which tunnels traffic across Hurricane Electric without needing an account: http://www.trex.fi/service/teredo.html

Then IPv6 only sites can be accessed in Firefox (but not Chrome).

Naturally I would prefer it if Plusnet enabled native IPv6.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Naturally I would prefer it if Plusnet enabled native IPv6.

They wouldn't have a clue how .

I was on their trial for ages, and in my ignorance didn't realise theirs.

They were allocating a single IPv6 address. End of. Even that needed to be through a separate user account, with IIRC also a different IPv4 one.

When I moved to AAISP with a /48 and a pre-allocated /64 block within it I had to do a lot of reading of Help pages! (If that doesn't add up it means I could add more /64s through my Control Panel).

Customers are allocated a /48 block of addresses - this is usually per customer, and so a customer with multiple circuits or sites will have a /64 allocated from the larger /48 block. A /48 contains 65536 /64's and a /64 subnet is 18 million trillion addresses.

Or delete the pre-allocated one and use the /48.

Plus a static /128 for the router. (A /96 outside my /48, plus my static IPv4 address converted to hex).

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They were allocating a single IPv6 address.

That's a very odd implementation. Do you know what sort of IPv6 addresses were handed out to clients connected to the router?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

When I moved to AAISP with a /48 and a pre-allocated /64 block within it I had to do a lot of reading of Help pages! (If that doesn't add up it means I could add more /64s through my Control Panel).

Customers are allocated a /48 block of addresses - this is usually per customer, and so a customer with multiple circuits or sites will have a /64 allocated from the larger /48 block. A /48 contains 65536 /64's and a /64 subnet is 18 million trillion addresses.

Or delete the pre-allocated one and use the /48.

Plus a static /128 for the router. (A /96 outside my /48, plus my static IPv4 address converted to hex).

I need to do some serious reading up on IPv6 addresses

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

When I moved to AAISP with a /48 and a pre-allocated /64 block within it I had to do a lot of reading of Help pages! (If that doesn't add up it means I could add more /64s through my Control Panel).

Customers are allocated a /48 block of addresses - this is usually per customer, and so a customer with multiple circuits or sites will have a /64 allocated from the larger /48 block. A /48 contains 65536 /64's and a /64 subnet is 18 million trillion addresses.

Or delete the pre-allocated one and use the /48.

Plus a static /128 for the router. (A /96 outside my /48, plus my static IPv4 address converted to hex).

I need to do some serious reading up on IPv6 addresses

As I did!

Start here, and explore.

It seems from what I have since seen, that BT and other such ISPs are issuing a single /56 to SOHO customers. Which is still far more than any of us could need. AAISP give the availability of 65,536 /64s. I did set up a second one as an experiment.

The other thing I might not easily explain, particularly as I don't know how the router address is handled by other ISPs, but in the case of AAISP router clients received two (three) IPv6 addresses. A static one wjthin the /64 that identified it within AAISP's system and a similar dynamic one in it that changed frequently and was the one presented to the outside world in "What is my IP address" queries.

It took me a while to work out (despite being told so) that neither was the one to use for the thinkbroadband BQM. I had to work out the conversion described in my previous post.

The third was one that started fe80. That is equivalent to the LAN-internal IPv4 192.xxx.xxx.xxx that we are used to.

Edit: Just noticed spell-chucker had changed �thing� to �think�.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 05-Dec-19 10:22:52)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They were allocating a single IPv6 address.

That's a very odd implementation. Do you know what sort of IPv6 addresses were handed out to clients connected to the router?

Sorry, no, but I think it was fully NAT'ed by the router. If I did a "What is my IP address" or went into BQM setup it was always the same device-independent, (i.e. was the static router) IPv6 address. BQM continuing to work even when my computer that set it up was switched off.

As I said, PN hadn't a clue. At least at that time. The trial was a complete waste of time.

Utter garbage, which was the point I was making. Presumably if and when PN do go to proper IPv6 implementation somebody from BT will be seconded in to set it up.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

AAISP give the availability of 65,536 /64s. I did set up a second one as an experiment.

The other think I might not easily explain, particularly as I don't know how the router address is handled by other ISPs, but in the case of AAISP router clients received two (three) IPv6 addresses. A static one wjthin the /64 that identified it within AAISP's system and a similar dynamic one in it that changed frequently and was the one presented to the outside world in "What is my IP address" queries.

It took me a while to work out (despite being told so) that neither was the one to use for the thinkbroadband BQM. I had to work out the conversion described in my previous post.

The third was one that started fe80. That is equivalent to the LAN-internal IPv4 192.xxx.xxx.xxx that we are used to.

Same here with IDnet (as far as I understand all the network and router settings!).

I haven't tried a second subnet, one lot of IPv6 is enough to make my brain hurt

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They were allocating a single IPv6 address. End of.

So I should think, don't want to risk running out of IPv6 addresses as well, do we?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Sorry, no, but I think it was fully NAT'ed by the router.

It's truly comical to think Plusnet spent developer time on organising that setup, they can't have seriously thought they would ever launch it like that. But having a "trial" does sort of suggest they were.

As for BT & Sky, they are like AAISP in that they assign a /56 and allocate a /64 out of that. Unlike AAISP though you can't have more than one /64.

Sadly a lot of people on BT non-fibre don't have IPv6 because BT never sorted the firmware out on the Home Hub 4, which was given to new ADSL2+ customers up until they stopped supplying ADSL2+ to new customers (although possibly they still do in non-fibre areas).

That doesn't make sense, allocating a /56 and not allowing more than one /64. It sounds more like future-proofing, for The Internet of Things. So each and every one of your toenail clippings can be traced through to ecological disposal.

Hi

Many clients generate and use for outbound requests a random IPv6 address, I think these can live for around 7 days so you can end up with say Windows reporting it has many IPv6 addresses, most of which are temporary, as it will use a new random IPv6 address each day.

It is all to do with privacy extensions to IPv6 https://superuser.com/questions/703915/why-does-my-w...

For any inbound services the permanent IPv6 address is the one to use.

It's suddenly a strange concept having millions of public IP addresses and devices having many addresses after living with NAT and each device just having one IP that we could remember, and could even specifically set from DHCP.

Regards

Phil

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That's giving me a 404 error Ian.

Sorry, yes, as others have found somehow I got a rogue q...

Yes, thanks Philip. That will help others. I wasn�t saying I hadn�t worked out what was going on, but that I was having a problem explaining it to others.

Which you have succeeded in doing .

I�ve got another IPv6 oddity now I am totally on mobile broadband, but that can wait for a thread of its own another day.

And on Windows if you want to assign a static IPv6 address you must disable RA responding otherwise you end up with two public IPv6 addresses and the RA one appears to be the one that takes priority in some way. It took me 15 minutes to work this out earlier this month when building my new server. That and working out how to get the Windows firewall to let it respond to pings for my TBBQM were the biggest hurdles.

For sure IPv6 is not just 'IPv4 with some extra bytes'. It's a whole load more complicated and I can well understand why so many large organisations haven't bothered with it. What I can't understand (or feel pity over) is that when PN rebuilt their network a couple of years ago why the *bleep* didn't they include IPv6? Cost and incompetence probably.

In reply to a post by dsergeant:

I would have thought the list of IPv6 only sites would be somewhat longer than that one - yes, I can access them all.... I have had ipv6 for some years on Sky and more recently BT and they at least do offer it to everybody even though their support people know nothing about it. I have also enabled ipv6 on my websites and do see many access it via ipv6. I would have thought by now at nearly 2020 most of the mainstream ISPs would offer it but it seems not.

Same. My mail server and its UI are available over IPv6. Not many servers use it but GMail does. I was one of the early adopters because I ran into an issue they initially had with validation. At first they were only comparing the IPv4 address to confirm the sender and funnily enough the IPv6 address of my server didn't match my IPv4 address

Tricky.

.onion services are also part of the Internet but unreachable without TOR. Should ISPs be providing free TOR gateways?

I can see why this was rejected. It would be a nightmare of a precedent to set even if it makes sense purely in isolation.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

.onion services are also part of the Internet but unreachable without TOR. Should ISPs be providing free TOR gateways?

I think that's a bit of a straw man tbh... a lot of services aren't accessible without an account, VPN etc, but the servers are.

If I've only got IPv4 and a service is on an IPv6 only server, then I can't even access the server. (eta- at least, not without some sort of kludge like a tunnel)

Edited by billford (Thu 05-Dec-19 12:45:56)

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

.onion services are also part of the Internet but unreachable without TOR. Should ISPs be providing free TOR gateways?

I think that's a bit of a straw man tbh... a lot of services aren't available without an account, VPN etc, but the servers are.

If I've only got IPv4 and a service is on an IPv6 only server, then I can't even access the server.

Last I checked you are accessing services via your connection, not servers necessarily. You can't access AWS servers, they are not publicly addressed, you can certainly access the services running on them if the owners permit it,. The service you access can be provided by a variety of servers, some of which you may not access at all, they are called by another server you can reach which provides output.

You are also wrong about VPNs and servers being reachable. I'm quite sure you can't reach my company's internal servers from outside our building without a VPN. Same goes for TOR hosted services, if they are done properly you have no access to the server over anything bar TOR.

Not a direct response to you but that providers have IPv6 running on their networks internally is likewise irrelevant.

They also have IGPs running on them, however we don't get to hook up to the BGP or OSPF instance the router we terminate on is running.

Either way we pay for connectivity to services, not specific servers, and it's services that are covered by network neutrality, etc.

Granting all you say, I think I expressed it badly by using the word "available" (edited to "accessible"). In somewhat anthropomorphic terms:

If a device of any sort has an internet address then I can make a (logical) connection to it. Granted, it may decide to ignore me, but in order to ignore me it has to know I'm there.

If it's an IPv6-only device and I'm using IPv4 I can't even get to that stage!

Another interesting point to consider is that some server providers have an inclusive IPv6 address and charge extra for an IPv4 address.

So if one was to rent a server from them, the lack of an ISP-supplied IPv6 address means having to pay extra for the server.

Top marks to the OP for raising this, and for following through with Ofcom and the ASA.

A couple of years ago I got IP6 address(es) from my ISP ( Entanet ) and a huge amount of help from them in getting that working. I have to say I spent an enormous amount of time working on this. I was determined to learn about if, if nothing else.

But at the end of the day I gained nothing real from the time and experience. IP6 is a solution that few people understand. And it is definitely not easily understood like IP4 is.

I still have that IP6 addressing, but never think or try to use it any more. My hosting server got IP6 addressing as well, over a year ago. But I cannot work up the desire or time to play with it.

Sadly I think the solution to the IP4 problem is a long way away yet. Not sure I'll be around to see it.

In reply to a post by billford:

Granting all you say, I think I expressed it badly by using the word "available" (edited to "accessible"). In somewhat anthropomorphic terms:

If a device of any sort has an internet address then I can make a (logical) connection to it. Granted, it may decide to ignore me, but in order to ignore me it has to know I'm there.

If it's an IPv6-only device and I'm using IPv4 I can't even get to that stage!

Not really. Plenty of nodes have IP addresses that are legitimate and you can't access them in any way, shape or form as their prefixes aren't advertised to you. From your point of view they don't exist.

Further devices with routable addresses don't need to know you're there to ignore you - you'll get nowhere near them before something else ignores you. Try reaching the /29 I have at home you'll get blocked when you hit the /32 on the router in front of them

Yet more have IP addresses but you are not permitted to talk to them - they have no visibility of you whatsoever, they don't talk IP natively they just carry it and unless you access the via a specific path you're getting nothing from them.

13 brnt-ic-1-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net (62.254.42.198) 112.523 ms 205.923 ms *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 leed-core-2a-ae4-0.network.virginmedia.net (82.15.94.254) 77.059 ms 85.573 ms 61.107 ms
18 lee2-cmts-14-tenge412.network.virginmedia.net (80.0.50.198) 72.855 ms
lee2-cmts-14-tenge413.network.virginmedia.net (80.0.50.202) 65.216 ms *

14, 15, 16 all speak IPv4 and v6. Neither are interested in responding unless you know exactly how to talk to them.

The other side of hop 17 was actually manc-bb-2a-ae4-0.network.virginmedia.net. brnt-bb-2a-ae4-0.network.virginmedia.net was possibly hop 14. All have IP addresses, none of them talk to you unless you address them specifically.

With that in mind it's a very, very tricky precedent to set had they started down this road.

I see your point but with all the encapsulation options available it's tricky. A number of devices use neither IPv4 or IPv6 as their main native protocol, they only carry it and respond to it from restricted management networks.

So do we start preventing VRFs too as they restrict parts of Internet-connect devices from reachability via IP? Force ISPs to advertise all VRFs to customers via some IGP so that they can reach all devices on the publicly reachable Internet the ISP is responsible for?

Core internet protocols. Where's my MPBGP session from my provider? Core protocol.

Can of worms I don't think anyone wants to open.

Edited by CarlTSpeak (Fri 06-Dec-19 10:24:01)

the only way ipv6 is getting universally adopted is a "nudge"

But there is no way the ASA was going to do it. Why would they? no one is advertising ipv6 as a feature and then not supplying it.

Ofcom will do what the government puts in their remit, so it needs something from government.

The problem is I see is two things.

IPv6 in its current state doesnt offer anything that the typical end user see's in their applications. Nothing at all. It's benefits are invisible to the end user. Essentially it makes things easier for network admin's, server admin's etc. But because there is no visible benefits, marketing teams (who essentially drive directions of ISP's) and regulators wont push for it.

The second issue is there is reasonable arguments to be made it still isnt quite ready, e.g. vendors are still not in agreement about NAT66 or even NAT46/NAT64, some e.g. pfsense refuse to implement it, others have. Some vendors believe everyone should be using public address space on all devices, whilst there is entities and end users who actually prefer to use private address space. There is inconsistent handling of fragmented data as well.

As an example there is this guy, who thinks NAT is the bane of all evil, then what did he do? he wrote a guide on how to implement NAT66 via iptables, as he realised there was a need for it, and admitted its superior to tunnels.

https://blog.apnic.net/2018/02/02/nat66-good-bad-ugly/

I think these above issues are what's making some isps hold back, as they know it will generate support queries when things "break". They might have been more willing if ipv4 was default preference to ipv6 but its the other way round.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 08-Dec-19 00:01:02)

This post is off topic but I hope it is useful or interesting to some posters on this forum. It is a simple explanation of how to use apostrophes correctly.

The apostrophe is only used to indicate that letters have been omitted or that something possesses something else.

It is not used in verbs (doing words). So the typical end user see's is wrong. sees is just a form of the verb: I see, you see, they see, he/she sees.
It is not used in plurals: one apple, two apples, one ISP, two ISPs.

There are two uses:
1. Apostrophes indicate missing letters. doesn't = does not, don't = do not, o'clock = of the clock, won't = will not (!)
2. Apostrophes indicate possession. one party's manifesto, all the parties' manifestos
There is a simple way to get this right - ask yourself what is doing the possessing. In the first example it is one party and in the second it is all the parties. (Or say it the other way around - the manifesto of one party, the manifestos of all the parties - whatever comes after of is doing the possessing.) Then add apostrophe+s ('s) to the end of what is doing the possessing. If the result sounds silly just add the apostrophe and not the s. James's and Charles's sound ok, but parties's doesn't.
Examples: ladies' clothing, men's clothing, the lady's coat. The bold words are what is doing the possessing.

Exception There is one common exception - it's. When you are saying it is (it's hot, for example), this is Use 1, the missing letter, so there should be an apostrophe. But Use 2, possession (it's temperature, for example) also demands an apostrophe. To avoid confusion, Use 1 takes precedence and Use 2 doesn't get an apostrophe, so it's its temperature, meaning the temperature of it.
it's = it is
its = of it or possessed by it

Exercise Find the ten apostrophe mistakes in the linked post.

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

This post is off topic but I hope it is useful or interesting to some posters on this forum. It is a simple explanation of how to use apostrophes correctly.
...
Exercise Find the ten apostrophe mistakes in the linked post.

I think you mean �apostrophic mistakes�.

I can�t say I�m completely happy with your own lack of capitalisation here:-

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

In the telephone exchange (does it have to be a telephone exchange? are there other places? presumably it is usually here because of the existing ducts. what is the proper name for this part of the network?)

Nor am I impressed by the lack of commas or preferably semi-colons in the following:-

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

Naming and describing the ducts poles manholes cables cabinets splitters aggregators drops prisms terminals, the nature of the electrical and optical signals and the processing of them, power supplies, and anything else commonly involved.

Hi Thinker27

I'm sure most of us here try our best, but sadly we are not perfect

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

Sorry I sounded like a schoolmistress

I do have to agree with your above comment to me earlier in the year

its a forum not an essay.