In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

what they need isnt relevant here, they follow my guidance.

Any particular reason you don't follow your own and use BT at the moment and are considering Plusnet, both of whom have the dark cloud of CG-NAT hovering over them?

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Dec-13 23:40:03)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

PlusNet and BTretail experimenting with Carrier Grade NAT is insane

Nearly as insane as someone warning people off an ISP because it doesn't have IPv6 regardless of whether they actually need it or not while simultaneously using an ISP experimenting with CG-NAT.

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Dec-13 23:38:04)

In reply to a post by AndrewW:

Trust me there is a lot of forward planning going on. Where i work now ( very large global company) all IT equipment has to support IPV6, but its all turned off. We are waiting for that trigger, and its a massive change as well. not just a home router upgrade, These roll out project costs many millions. Until there is a business case there will be no migration to IPV6 by the vast majority of companies.

Also a quick read of the article you posted shows just what i have said, its not happening....... be prepared but don't enable is a general concept being followed by a large number of companies

This. Most kit in the large enterprise networks I work within supports IPv6 but there's no drive to pull the trigger. IPv4 and RFC1918 are working okay for now. It'll be something done because it has to be as there's so much potential for disturbance.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Nearly as insane as someone warning people off an ISP because it doesn't have IPv6 regardless of whether they actually need it or not while simultaneously using an ISP experimenting with CG-NAT.

BT weren't trialling CGNAT when I signed up, and if they tried to impose it on my connection whilst I was in my minimum term I would assume this was a detrimental change and the contract easily terminated with no penalty.

Edited by jchamier (Mon 09-Dec-13 08:29:19)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

This. Most kit in the large enterprise networks I work within supports IPv6 but there's no drive to pull the trigger. IPv4 and RFC1918 are working okay for now. It'll be something done because it has to be as there's so much potential for disturbance.

Yes, I see this as well. The other issue is training staff who are very familiar with IPv4 in the much more complex addressing structure.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

according to google data ipv6 adoption is averaging 5% in france, germany, canada, states and then the uk is 0.21%

Most of the IPv6 adoption in the USA is Comcast, who are using it because they had run out of IPv4 RFC1918 space.

Fixed, and I wasn't referring to yourself Sir.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Yes, I see this as well. The other issue is training staff who are very familiar with IPv4 in the much more complex addressing structure.

Untrained/unfamiliar staff with IPv6 is probably the biggest risk to some enterprises implementing IPv6. Something, say a whole office or site, inadvertently exposed to the internet via IPv6!

I dont just given them an isp, I do give them a list and tell them why i think they should go with one particular isp.

So it is still their choice.

As for me since you decided to join in the dig, if either plusnet or BT added cg-nat enforced to existing services that would be a clear detriment of service allowing a penalty free exit of contract.

As it is now BT are working on ipv6, their cg-nat can be opted out of.

why are you more interested in me than isp's attitude to ipv6?

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 09-Dec-13 00:22:10)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Nearly as insane as someone warning people off an ISP because it doesn't have IPv6 regardless of whether they actually need it or not while simultaneously using an ISP experimenting with CG-NAT.

I didn't write that. Your quotes are broken.

BT weren't trialling CGNAT when I signed up, and if they tried to impose it on my connection whilst I was in my minimum term I would assume this was a detrimental change and the contract easily terminated with no penalty.

same here seems like ignition just wanted to have a dig didnt like me expecting some kind of reason from zen. Plus if any isp tried to impose cg-nat thats a clear change of service to detriment and it would be pretty easy to force out of the contract. He normally makes decent posts but that wasnt one of them.