That sounds as if BT & Sky have decided to do this for political reasons rather than technical common sense. There is no need with the volume of addresses in v6.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

There is no need with the volume of addresses in v6.

Dynamic IP addressing hasn't been about IPv4 address conservation for many years. Pretty much everyone leaves their router on all the time, "hogging" an IPv4 address 24/7.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Do both for maximum security. Opening a server to the entire internet when it only needs to serve specific clients is an unnecessary risk.

Well most of the multinationals I know don't do both so they must consider it an acceptable risk specially when some of them have 10s of thousands of employees working away from their offices.

In reply to a post by dect:

Well most of the multinationals I know don't do both so they must consider it an acceptable risk specially when some of them have 10s of thousands of employees working away from their offices.

I agree that what is most secure isn't always practically feasible when dealing with a very large number of clients.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

All in all, most home users won't need a Static IP or a block of them

I'd agree with that, especially as every ISP router I've had supports dynamic DNS providers.

DDNS works great for incoming, but not so good for connecting outbound.

I run an email server. I'd rather have a static IP address.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

A static IPv4 address is a one-off cost of £5 with Plusnet.

comes as standard with IDNet, as does a /48 IPv6 block

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

A static IPv4 address is a one-off cost of £5 with Plusnet.

but the downside is ZERO support for IPv6.

I left PN because they took the time to rebuild their network (in 2017 I think) and failed to build IPv6 support in at the same time. Absolutely amazing that they did all that work and still didn't create an ISP fit for the 21st century.

I'm guessing you're some sort of IT worker who can't work without IPv6? Otherwise IPv6 isn't an absolute necessity for the average internet user, which is why not all mass CPs have adopted it at present. I'm sure all CPs will be suitably prepared on the day IPv4 stops working.

Edited by deleted (Sun 15-Sep-19 20:35:41)

Like AAISP then .

In reply to a post by baby_frogmella:

I'm guessing you're some sort of IT worker who can't work without IPv6? Otherwise IPv6 isn't an absolute necessity for the average internet user, which is why not all mass CPs have adopted it at present. I'm sure all CPs will be suitably prepared on the day IPv4 stops working.

Not supporting it on an existing network is one thing. A bit naff in this day and age but understandable for residential use. But PN undertook a major network rebuild. An ideal opportunity one would think to ensure that their network was up to date with all the latest technology and designed for the future. All they actually did was announce the end of their IPv6 beta programme because the servers weren't compatible with the new network.
So their network rebuild was actually a step backward.

That and their rapidly deteriorating technical support meant that I lost all confidence in them so I decided to jump ship.

Whether I need IPv6 or not isn't the point. Whether I can trust the competency of my ISP very much is.