IPV6

What is the latest with Zen & IPV6 these days? I'm on AAISP, but I have to switch. I have been putting it off for too long. Their pricing model doesn't work for me any more.

Looks like idnet is the place to be for ipv6. Would prefer Zen, but no ipv6 as far as I can see.

There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm within Zen for IPv6. The question has been asked a number of times on the Zen ISP forum and the responses have been noncommittal. IPv6 works well on IDNet.

Have you considered their Home::1 package as an alternative pricing model? http://aa.net.uk/broadband-home1.html

Yes, but it's no good. I am a homeworker and my business pays the bill, and I have to pay a portion of that. AAISP wont issue VAT invoices for Home::1

Besides that, Home::1 is a bit of a joke too. The highest tariff is 250GB. In their words "very high usage". If your using Netflix a lot, you can gobble that up in no time, especially if you have a household that sometimes has two steams running simultaneously.

zens pricing is worse than aaisp, so this choice is baffling.

just switch to home::1 you making your problem more complex by it seems trying to make things easy for your company.

and whilst the average usage these days is higher than it used to be 250gig is still very high usage.

how much is 250gig on zen?

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 17-Aug-13 22:04:15)

I tried to switch to Home::1 and AAISP rejected it, as the line is already being paid for by a Ltd company.

Zen: 1000Gb = £65
AAISP: 250Gb = £60 + ~£40 in topups

Have you considered enta.net resellers?

IPv6 is available, unlimited usage is available.

Even a choice of BT or O2 based backhaul is available.

yes and someone already told you to switch to your name.

And then I dont get a VAT receipt.

Still no progress on ipv6 with Zen

Hi all,

We are still working on an IPV6 offering but at the moment we don't have a release date. I'm sorry i wasn't able to offer anything more concrete at this time.

it is a no then

it was a no in 2012
it was a no in 2011
it was a no in 2010
it was a no in 2009
it was a no in 2008
etc....

it is still a no.

some companies are doing this and some not. make your choice

Yes, that's called recursion. No?

Latest from Zen:
There are no plans in the near-term to provide IPv6 support for customers on our Broadband services.

zen arent doing themselves any favours with these statements, they dont even feel the need to give a reason why they avoiding ipv6.

even BT retail have announced ipv6.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

even BT retail have announced ipv6.

What dates have BT given?

Edited by Spud2003 (Thu 05-Dec-13 21:24:48)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

zen arent doing themselves any favours with these statements, they dont even feel the need to give a reason why they avoiding ipv6.

even BT retail have announced ipv6.

Turn it on its head... why do you need IPv6?

Let's face it... 99%+ (?) of their customers have absolutely no need for it at the moment... therefore they aren't going to start replacing expensive networking equipment possibly costing hundreds of thousands of pounds just for the sake of a few users.

As soon as their big business customers (who use broadband... I presume Zen will offer IPv6 on their leased lines etc) have a requirement though they will soon change their tune. Hopefully for their sake they won't be caught off guard.

Edited by Pipexer (Thu 05-Dec-13 21:04:44)

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

zen arent doing themselves any favours with these statements, they dont even feel the need to give a reason why they avoiding ipv6.

even BT retail have announced ipv6.

Turn it on its head... why do you need IPv6?

Let's face it... 99%+ (?) of their customers have absolutely no need for it at the moment... therefore they aren't going to start replacing expensive networking equipment possibly costing hundreds of thousands of pounds just for the sake of a few users.

As soon as their big business customers (who use broadband... I presume Zen will offer IPv6 on their leased lines etc) have a requirement though they will soon change their tune. Hopefully for their sake they won't be caught off guard.

everyone needs ipv6 for the sake of the future of the internet, ipv6 applications will popup "after" lots of it is rolled out.

if zen have a good valid reason to put ipv6 aside I just want to hear it thats all, not just "its not planned".

BT announced sometime in 2013 which I think they will fail to meet given only a few weeks are left but there is ipv6 sections now on the homehub 5 firmware so they are clearly working on it.
aaisp a big competitior (I would think to zen) offer ipv6.
plusnet seem to be weird over it the same as zen however when BT roll it out plusnet will surely follow.

I suspect zen simply have ample ipv4 supply vs number of customers and as such consider it a waste of resources, but maybe I am wrong?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

BT announced sometime in 2013 which I think they will fail to meet given only a few weeks are left but there is ipv6 sections now on the homehub 5 firmware so they are clearly working on it.
aaisp a big competitior (I would think to zen) offer ipv6.
plusnet seem to be weird over it the same as zen however when BT roll it out plusnet will surely follow.

IDNet have had it for a couple of years. They give you a v6 address block and let you get on with it. It isn't officially supported, but is there for testing purposes. Having said that, they will help as much as they can.

In reply to a post by ukwiz:

IDNet have had it for a couple of years. They give you a v6 address block and let you get on with it. It isn't officially supported, but is there for testing purposes. Having said that, they will help as much as they can.

IDNet IPv6 works very well though I did have an issue with not being able to set rDNS on IPv6. This was something to do with RIPE and the IDNet address block, but it has now been satisfactorily resolved. If IDNet and AAISP can do it why can't/won't Zen?

Edited by Adrian (Fri 06-Dec-13 11:04:23)

In reply to a post by Adrian:

In reply to a post by ukwiz:

IDNet have had it for a couple of years. They give you a v6 address block and let you get on with it. It isn't officially supported, but is there for testing purposes. Having said that, they will help as much as they can.

IDNet IPv6 works very well though I did have an issue with not being able to set rDNS on IPv6. This was something to do with RIPE and the IDNet address block, but it has now been satisfactorily resolved. If IDNet and AAISP can do it why can't/won't Zen?

It must be because Zen's cost:benefit analysis of their customer base's likely usage of IPv6 services says that it would cost more than any increase in income to the business due to it being provided. As with everything in business, they may be correct in their analysis or they may not.

In the longer term IPv6 will come, but it has to be said that the way it has been specified, and the lack of simple backwards compatibility with existing addressing mechanisms, is a serious limitation on takeup even in the face of IPv4 address exhaustion.

dual stacking is the answer, so someone dual stacked is effectively in backwards compatability mode. Eventually enough endpoints will be on ipv6 where no longer automatically allocating ipv4 to new connections becomes somewhat viable.

This may be an area I fear regulation is needed as isp's will only make the decision based on business merits.

It is self regulated because as more IPv4 space runs out ISPs will have no choice. IPv4 will be here for a very long time to come, it is not going anywhere overnight. At the moment there is no disadvantage by not having IPv6 to the home user, there really isn't. It would be nice to have IPv6 so I can boast about it (not like anyone would care) but beyond that I have absolutely no use for it at the moment, if I don't, chances most home users don't either.

That is not to say Zen should move slowly - I would expect them to do something about this in the next 2 years, but not right now.

waiting for ipv4 to run out is not the way to go.

also ipv4 has actually already run out at the top level.

the fact you are admitting about now is all that matters is to me backing up regulation is needed, a regulato telling isps they have to supply ipv6 alongside ipv4 they would all suddenly make a solution within weeks.

Sorry Chrysalis but you have not yet provided a reason as to why everyone needs IPv6 right now other than believing the news hype that IPv4 is contributing to global warming, starvation and atmospheric pollution. If it was that important to you you would have left Zen and moved to an ISP that did support IPv6. Regulator or not, no ISP would be implementing something from start to finish in weeks, it would be a recipe for disaster, and you would be the first one complaining when your routing is all cocked up due to IPv6 being implemented incorrectly.

Leave it to the ISPs, almost all of them will have done a CBA and ROI calculation on implementing IPv6 and the fact that most of them don't support it shows that it isn't sensible for them to implement it right now. Whether it has run out at top level or not is immaterial and it is not something the home user needs to be concerned about.

Even if Zen switched it on tomorrow my 2820 does not support it and I'd need to purchase a new Draytek router - circa £150. I am not in any hurry to do this. Neither are many small businesses i assure you when their existing setup is working fine.

I am just guessing here but the main reason they might not be supporting it is likely some of their core broadband service routers do not support it - big money to replace, and actually, let's say hypothetically a new model is coming out next year which has amazing features, why would they bother to upgrade now just to support IPv6 when they could wait a couple of months and get the brand new state of the art system. It is a shame Zen aren't a bit more open on what equipment they use like PIPEX and Nildram used to be (and some smaller ones like AAISP still are), for example it says on their network page they still use Redback products - one would hope they have moved on from the SMS-10000.

Edited by Pipexer (Sat 07-Dec-13 15:07:51)

I have provided a reason, you just dont agree with it.

I keep saying ROI shouldnt be a factor on IPV6, its for the good of the internet. For this reason it should be regulated in.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 07-Dec-13 15:42:11)

why the panic about IPv6 ??

This technology has been around since 1998, and when i worked for a large mobile telco back in 2000, we looked to implement new products with IPv6 enabled, but scrapped the idea,due to lack of interest / and IPV4 still available

In my view the IPV6 implementation will be down to ROI, like the replacement of Telnet with SSH (although there are many other examples (hacking attacks cost money credentials in the clear are an easy target)). When there is a risk to profits IPV6 will come in, but it wont be in weeks. It will be over years with the large hosting providers running dual stacks (like Google) , and when these type of providers state that IPV4 will be turned off in x years then the push will really come, Until then not much will happen, and the constant back ground noise, we are going to run out of IPV4 addresses or wehave run out of IPV4 will to some extend be ignored. Yes i know there is a limit , but its amazing what proxies and NATting will do.

Take a look at google's own data
http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html
Just over 2.5% of users access google using IPv6

you got it the wrong way round.

google arent going to denounce ipv4 until ipv6 is widespread in homes, thats if ever. google are already dual stack, so they have already moved first, you think google changed to ipv6 for business reasons? note microsoft, google, facebook etc. changed on the same day for a reason.

if thats what the likes of zen are waiting for then they be waiting forever. You are basically saying its cool to wait until they are forced to do it by a ipv4 turnoff.

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

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 07-Dec-13 19:04:23)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

if thats what the likes of zen are waiting for then they be waiting forever. You are basically saying its cool to wait until they are forced to do it by a ipv4 turnoff.

No I don't think we're saying that at all. We are saying there needs to be a clear business case before an ISP moves to IPv6.... and remember, this cost may get passed onto you as the customer too.. I have zero need for IPv6 at the moment, the fact my connection is lacking IPv6 is affecting the way I go about using the internet pretty much 0%. Therefore why would I be bothered about it as a customer?

I remember someone asking whether PIPEX did IPv6 back in 2005..... 8 years down the line we are still coping on IPv4.

There are still many years left for an ISP like Zen to implement IPv6 without going into panic mode, they probably have loads of IP addresses left.

Google and Microsoft absolutely moved to IPv6 for business reasons: 1) They need to be at the forefront - looks good on PR. 2) Their own internal networks probably pushing boundaries of IPv4 3) They were running out of public IPv4 4) They are utilizing IPv6 technologies for their data centres and services etc.

These issues don't necessarily affect home and small business users as much, or even at all.

google and microsoft are not running out of ipv4.

they didnt move to ipv6 because they had to.

they did it for the sake of the internet.

none of their sites are ipv6 only, they have enough ipv4.

also the americans I believe have had some kind of push from the government for ipv6 adoption, I believe all us .gov sites are dual stacked.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/us-govern...

it does seem a old british trademark to use old things until they break, no forward planning.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 07-Dec-13 20:01:59)

Your right in some ways but not in others, I agree Google will not denounce IPV4 until its widespread, but also ipv6 will not become wide spread until there is business need.
Take another example. HTML 5 great technology, but it was never going to have a huge hold until the likes of Apple and Google dropped support for Adobe flash (admittedly different reasons), but it will take a push. Most likely there will be some new services for IPV6 (can't think of any for now) which people will want and will for some reason only be on IPV6 only, as people start to migrate this trend is picked up the large providers, and they will also start to offer IPV6 only services (whilst keeping their old services on line). You will also start to see alot of marketing as well, like for DLNA, tablet computing etc.
At some point there will be so much momentum that IPV4 services will be given a limited life, and then that's its the pressure will be huge for every thing and every one to migrate.

Or IPV6 dies......

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

In reply to a post by AndrewW:

Most likely there will be some new services for IPV6 (can't think of any for now)

DirectAccess for Windows 7 and 8

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

it does seem a old british trademark to use old things until they break, no forward planning.

PlusNet and BTretail experimenting with Carrier Grade NAT is insane.

If more people in the UK could speak Asian languages it would be more important, as there are a lot of websites in Asia that are ONLY available on IPv6, as their ISPs only had small IPv4 allocations in the first place so ran out first.

a point to make on ROI, zen have lost me as a potential customer plus 4 business associates of mine who have their own people they have influence over as well.

I got BE over 10 business customers 4 years ago based on a reccomendation from me.

So dont assume either the ROI is a slam dunk.

I think we done on this subject anyway, you guys think its a ROI decision only I think it isnt.

So I take it your 4 business associates had a real need for IPv6 too with their internet connection? That does not seem a logical reason to not recommend an ISP "because they don't do IPv6" when the business probably doesn't care about IPv6.

To a small and medium business (say up to 100 employees), in most cases, they want good service, good bandwidth, a few static IP address etc. Even if you gave them IPv6 they wouldn't have the technical expertise to implement IPv6 services properly if at all. If they are quite technical even things like connection pings/routing, capacity, no throttling or bandwidth shaping still take more priority over IPv6.

You aren't putting a sensible argument together other than saying IPv6 is important for the sake of the internet, heck you haven't even given a reason why you need IPv6!

I'm going to put the predictable smiley in because I'm not trying to negatively argue with you, I am just putting some points across that I think you are not considering fully.

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

No I don't think we're saying that at all. We are saying there needs to be a clear business case before an ISP moves to IPv6.... and remember, this cost may get passed onto you as the customer too.. I have zero need for IPv6 at the moment, the fact my connection is lacking IPv6 is affecting the way I go about using the internet pretty much 0%. Therefore why would I be bothered about it as a customer?

If we were talking about a mass-market consumer ISP then I might well agree with you but we aren't. Zen is supposed to be focused towards the business/pro-user market segment who have different needs from your average punter. I'm currently in the process of setting up some new hosted services and because I'm aware of the issues surrounding IPv4 exhaustion I'm planning ahead and implementing IPv6 so that I'm ready when the take-up does accelerate. While it is possible to debug and test from an IPv4 connection by using a tunnel broker having native IPv6 is certainly preferable.

I expect Zen to have the forethought to provision extra capacity in their network before it is needed and I'd have hoped they would have taken the same attitude to IPv6. Ironically the thing that is stopping me from jumping ship to a provider that does support IPv6 is IPv4! Since IPv4 top level exhaustion fewer ISPs are willing to supply a routed subnet to new customers and those that do often charge a monthly fee for the privilege.

You seem to be making an argument that is circular as far as ISP customers' needs are concerned. The reason most customers don't need IPv6 at the moment is because there aren't a significant number of services that require it, but the reason there aren't more services is because providers haven't rolled out IPv6 to customers...and so on. Anyway IPv6 is coming, around the world ISPs are beginning to provide it and the Internet does need it.

Edited by Spud2003 (Sun 08-Dec-13 17:29:24)

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

But the reason there aren't more services is because providers haven't rolled out IPv6 to customers...and so on.

Economics is circular... Of course the internet needs it, I am well aware of the benefits of IPv6, but it is not the be all and end all of broadband connections now. The very fact I am with Zen and have a router that doesn't work with IPv6 is good enough proof that the majority of people can do without it at this moment in time, quite frankly if it was impacting me I would have left a long time ago. There are other things that Zen do which annoy me far more than not having IPv6 (such as becoming less and less transparent).

I would expect them to be announcing plans towards the end of next year definitely, but it really isn't important now. It is like when I bought a router that is ADSL2+ compatible back in 2006. I am still on ADSL1 in 2013! Needless to say I have been through 2 routers since then anyway and if I do get put on ADSL2+ or FTTC I will be upgrading my router again.

What it is very easy to forget (myself included) that the majority of people who have broadband connections are not interested these technical details, as long as it runs their webserver and possibly exchange server, and lets employees get on google and make VPN connections, they are happy. They are not going to waste time and money (after such a big recession) upgrading their ASA, threat management, and client operating systems to support IPv6 for the sake of it.

I think if you read and digest the replies from Zen and how they specifically say "not on broadband connections" it is clear that some of their expensive broadband equipment does not support it, this is a lot of money to replace and they are probably evaluating trends and replacement equipment (given how FTTC is becoming much more popular) going forward.

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

However I prefer to have ipv6 since I have to rollout ipv6 on websites and I need to test that connectivity, currently I use tunnels which works but I would prefer to not need to. Tbats one you havent thought off.

As always some people have influence over others and I have influence over some business owner's choice of isp's, with whats happening to BE they need to find a new isp, I havent suggested one to them yet. But it wont be zen now. Although ipv6 isnt the only reason it is a factor. I will probably point all of them to aaisp.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 08-Dec-13 20:44:26)

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.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

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.

Is ipv6 that hard to add to networking configurations?

I recognise staff training issues. I recognise old equipment may not suppport ipv6. However adding ipv6 routing to an existing network is one of the easier things I have done, and for safety ipv4 can be set as preference.

The problem of waiting for "when it has to be done" means it will never get done. its one of those thngs where everyone is saying "you first".

For this reason its not impossible ipv6 gets abandoned as already mentioned, it may be the case companies instead just use things like cg-nat instead as its more conveniant, although I think cg-nat is way more complex than adding ipv6 dual stacking.

I think also is a big difference between a company that uses connectvity for its business and one that sells connectivity for its business rolling out ipv6. You guys may consider configuring but not activting ipv6 as the norm for isp's yet I am seeing differently, I use many datacentres and most provide ipv6 connectivity.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 09-Dec-13 01:51:23)

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

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!

if you talking about generic office staff, why would it affect them? the www still uses domain names on ipv6. dual stack doesnt disable ipv4 either.

also are you the guy who upgraded his office to windows 8? that would be a far bigger impact than adding ipv6 to office staff.

I am not reccomending not just because of ipv6 there is other factors although zen are in the shortlist, the isp is on the list I am passing on to them, however since I take into account principles as well the principles of zen regarding ipv6 had some affect of the one isp I will suggest to them is the best choice. To make it clear I am not telling anyone to avoid zen.

Also a factor is that these companies dont like changing isp's at all, the BE change is sort of enforced on them, an isp that is trying to be proactively future proof for that reason will obviously gain points.

ISP's used to live at the cutting edge, collaborating with each other to build a better internet.

These days ISP's are run by accountants, and It's sad that ISPs dont feel the need to upgrade to IPV6. Who knows what killer apps might come out of it. Multicast TV for example. Better peer to peer technologies, especially with mobiles.

ISP's like Zen are holding back innovation. I could understand if there was a big cost implication, but there isn't. I bet all their hardware has supported IPV6 for years. You just have to spend a bit of time training up staff, and testing it. It's just lazy.

Edited by stuorguk (Mon 09-Dec-13 02:38:11)

In reply to a post by stuorguk:

ISP's used to live at the cutting edge, collaborating with each other to build a better internet.

I wonder if we'll see it coming from the mobile phone world instead? Smart phones seem to pretty much all support IPv6 these days, so this may be where a lot of the IPv6 support ends up coming from. Mobile operators like Verizon wireless mandate that LTE phones must support IPv6, but IPv4 support is optional (!). T-Mobile US also has IPv6 running on their mobile network.

Given that RIPE seems to have about 14million IPv4 addresses left at the moment, it'll be interesting to see what happens when Europe actually runs out.

For better or worse ISPs for now don't need a reason not to deploy IPv6, that's sadly how it is.

Discounting an ISP due to their lack of IPv6 support barring a few extremely limited ranges of customers would be pretty odd.

I apologise for my harshness, your post did give the impression that you were directing people based on your own prejudices rather than towards whatever was best for them, and you have to admit given your posts here that your own choice of ISP is a compromise between price, service, and in no way IPv6 support.

Either way, sorry about that. Could've been phrased far better.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Is ipv6 that hard to add to networking configurations?

If only it were as simple as that!

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I recognise staff training issues. I recognise old equipment may not suppport ipv6. However adding ipv6 routing to an existing network is one of the easier things I have done, and for safety ipv4 can be set as preference.

Painless enough to implement, sure, but there's a ton more to it than just implementing it. More to the point if you aren't actually going to use it, keeping IPv4 as the default, why bother? In a mission critical network implementing things for the sake of it is extremely bad practise.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The problem of waiting for "when it has to be done" means it will never get done. its one of those thngs where everyone is saying "you first".

No, it means it gets done when it needs to be done. Corporate networks aren't always, indeed are rarely, running the latest and greatest versions of Windows, Office and Exchange for a good reason. It has nothing to add that will improve productivity.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

For this reason its not impossible ipv6 gets abandoned as already mentioned, it may be the case companies instead just use things like cg-nat instead as its more conveniant, although I think cg-nat is way more complex than adding ipv6 dual stacking.

CG-NAT is trivial and uses well understood concepts.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I think also is a big difference between a company that uses connectvity for its business and one that sells connectivity for its business rolling out ipv6. You guys may consider configuring but not activting ipv6 as the norm for isp's yet I am seeing differently, I use many datacentres and most provide ipv6 connectivity.

Indeed they do, because they have a good reason to do so. It can be used as a sales pitch and is fairly painless to implement and maintain as datacentre networks are pretty simple compared to corporate networks.

If you look at the 'equivalents' of these datacentre networks, ISP core and transit / peering networks, you'll note that the overwhelming majority run IPv6 - go here and check the IPv6 address box. BT, Sky and TalkTalk all run IPv6 peering, O2/Be apparently don't, neither do Plusnet or VM/LGI.

ISPs on the whole are not scared of running IPv6 on their own core network, it's their access network, BRAS / CMTS / CPE that scare them more. Comcast had no choice in the matter as they ran out of RFC1918 space to manage their CPE.

In reply to a post by stuorguk:

ISP's used to live at the cutting edge, collaborating with each other to build a better internet

They still do collaborate.

What they don't do is live at the cutting edge. Many people and businesses rely on these ISPs to give them stable connectivity. Running a network on the 'cutting edge' as a giant lab for new technologies is a bad idea with that in mind.

I understand that, but IPV6 is not cutting edge. Maybe 10 years ago.

Nor is it essential just yet. Most of these guys' cost is CPE and that's the rub for right now. Look at Sky's new hub and think about the miniscule cost saving they'd have made going for 100Mb switch ports over 1Gb yet there they are.

no problem, I came across wrong as well.

also thanks for the insight on the ipv6 peering situation, wasnt aware.

Chrysalis
Don't get us wrong we not having a go. However i suspect Pipexer and the others who don't back the immediate implementation on IPV6 work for large organisations. For me the company i work for has approx 150K users, plus millions of customers world wide.
The implementation of IPV6 at companies this size is not a small matter, compared to SMEs.
These companies can not afford to have unstable networks, or even worse holes though a bodged implementation/management caused by staff new to the technology.
If you have to stand up in front of the board asking for money, Its an easy sell a story to ensure that all networking kit is IPV6 capable as this is good practice and has little cost impact. Its a totally different matter to suggest a world wide project which had no business gain, will cost hundreds of millions to implement and test (especially given that a lot of projects will need to be delayed / retrofitted and then tested again (potentially losing business). Then we have penetration tests, all will need to be run again. All for no business gain, and with out the threat of business loss if this activity does not occur. It just wont happen

Andrew

Really its not just clicking enable on the routers and servers.

If your that intrested why don't you suggest taking part in a beta programme if / when occurs.

Edited by deleted (Mon 09-Dec-13 19:06:42)

is no problem.

I agree in terms of business merit ipv6 has little immeediate gain other than to gain customers who specifically want it.

that was why I was suggesting it should be regulated in. Because I did already acknowledge the immediate business case isnt there, and of course with the possibility of things such as cg-nat there may not even be a long term business case.

zen have made their decision, I will still watch with interest in the future (I did slap plusnet as well in the past when they silently dropped ipv6 plans).

Excellent explanation I agree entirely with you.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

that was why I was suggesting it should be regulated in.

That seems rather heavy handed, illiberal, and prone to various issues. We can't on the one hand demand that government keep their nose out of the Internet then on the other ask that they mandate adoption of standards on it.

We can't have it both ways and I'd prefer it if the government didn't attempt to micromanage something they clearly don't understand.

That said Julian Huppert MP would be the man in this case, he being about the only MP I'm aware of who understands anything about the Internet.

isnt there other regulations on the internet that everyone has to adhere to? I would just see ipv6 as another one of those.

we are at a stage now where commercial devices have ipv6 already integrated, isp's are probably actually paying cpe suppliers to remove ipv6, and although you told me cg-nat is easier to add than ipv6, that seems diffilcult to accept as cg-nat is opening a whole can of worms, numerous apps would immediatly break with it, complications in isp side equipment forwarding traffic to the right users and more. ipv6 on the other hand is transparent to the end user, nothing is going to break unless someone makes an error in implementation. It has been around for a decade.

I see rolling out windows 8 to office desktops as far more risky and disruptive than adding ipv6 to the network stack, and I would be surprised if cg-nat generated less disruption than ipv6 as well. Obviously you know more than me on this but I think is fear more than anything else, just that 'risk' of something really breaking and then having to deal with an outage afterwards. The suppliers of network equipment cisco, juniper etc. will have been dealing with ipv6 for many years already and as such their code will be mature now.

It is also concerning now days business's still need an immediate business case, as if now is all that matters, its one reason why we dont have an edge as a country as we are always behind the trend.

has your company done any kind of live testing with ipv6? or its not even done that yet?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

isnt there other regulations on the internet that everyone has to adhere to? I would just see ipv6 as another one of those.

Why?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

has your company done any kind of live testing with ipv6? or its not even done that yet?

I work with tons of companies from Google right down to a company with a couple of sites. The really massive ones have some IPv6 in place though only on specific sections of their network, virtually all the rest haven't touched it.

Even on the really big boys IPv6 doesn't appear to be pervasive. Everything is still rolling on RFC1918 IPv4 with IPv6 in use as required.

People like their IT to just work and don't want to notice it.

My actual employer doesn't use IPv6 on our corporate network, but our software supports it. We ourselves have absolutely no driver to force our adoption of IPv6 at this time. We are way too small to have a shortage of RFC1918 address space.

Think you'll find most companies haven't done any 'live' testing of IPv6. We're familiar with the technology and comfortable with it but have no requirement to implement it. Our IT guys have plenty of other things to occupy their time.

Thank you for the reminder to do a dedicated IPv6 course though! I am due some training before the end of the business year and that'll do nicely.

EDIT: You seem to think this is flicking a switch and all will be good. Sadly not.

Edited by deleted (Tue 10-Dec-13 18:04:58)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I see rolling out windows 8 to office desktops as far more risky and disruptive than adding ipv6 to the network stack, and I would be surprised if cg-nat generated less disruption than ipv6 as well.

The difference being that rolling out Windows 8 has brought immediate benefits to the IT across everywhere it has been deployed. It comes on faster, it is more reliable, more secure, and more manageable, users can launch applications faster, their work is more secure because crashes happen less frequently - coupled with Office 2013 having improved document recovery features. They don't have to restart as often, Windows updates are seamless. Their internet browsing experience is also much better thanks to IE10. People figure out how to use it in no time and are grateful for the improvement.

What does deploying IPv6 do in benefiting everyone? The answer is nothing. No seriously, if I implemented IPv6 it would not benefit anyone whatsoever. The only thing it would do off the top of my head is make DirectAccess (a Windows 7 and even better in Windows 8 feature, by the way) much easier to configure, and a bit more reliable for the users.

But of course, you don't like Windows 8 do you so that is why you would see it more risky and disruptive...

Again you have not yet given a strong case why a home user or small to large business needs to implement IPv6 this year other than the wishy washy "it is good for the future of the internet". This is a nonsense argument. I believe you aren't even familiar with the features of IPv6 which would make it appealing because otherwise you would have mentioned them.

Even as far as this forum goes, I am probably one of the biggest internet buffs you will ever meet - I hate traffic shaping, I love good practice, I like short pings, good traceroutes, good DNS services, etc, etc, but IPv6 worries me less than all those former issues right now.

Actually on a very serious note if you want to blame people about lack of IPv6 it is those very people/companies who are still using legacy programs and operating systems such as Windows XP - because they are not driving any need for things like IPv6. In fact, my recent deployment of Windows 8 (which has technologies like DirectAccess) is why I need IPv6 internally to work (and also beneficial if on the internet connection - but not essential). In that regard I actually have very little sympathy as to why a lot of companies have not moved to Windows 7 by now, they had clear deadlines on when it would run out of support and they have also known since the release of Windows Vista (or maybe 7) of the new features provided by a newer OS, yet some have sat on their lazy backsides and are now scrambling like idiots to get systems upgraded. The pressures to move to IPv6 are simply not as important right now and hence the points I am making. I also have very little understanding for organizations upgrading from XP to 7 rather than going straight to 8. The usual excuse is "Oh well some applications don't work on Windows 8" ---- but they do on Windows 7? Yeah whatever.

I am not arguing against IPv6 but I am arguing about the time-scales that you think it is important service providers move on.

more than flicking a switch but I dont find configuring ipv6 much harder than configuring a new ipv4 block.

I was just asking tho if you did any testing after/before you configured so you know if will work or not when you do eventually turn on.

my view of windows 8 is not relevant in what I consider as disruptive.

Basically if you change someone's graphical interface its going to be disruptive regardless of how good that GUI may be, the only way it 'might' not be is if the staff have used that interface before. Even if in the long term is better it would be disruptive. Thats why I brought it up as you mentioned ipv6 would be disruptive and then I remembered you had rolled out windows 8.

Thats all

FWIW.

Plusnet have just announced: Plusnet IPv6 Trial Next Phase

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1211...

Pete

Hi,

You have mentioned that you consider CG-NAT as a terrible thing, and to be avoided at all costs. The problem is, CG-NAT will still be required even if you have an IPv6 address on your DSL connection when the ISP runs out of IPv4 addresses to give you. There will still be IPv4 internet that hasn't yet moved to IPv6, and that part is out of your ISP's control. To access that without a routable IPv4 address will require some kind of NAT. CG-NAT isn't aimed at giving connectivity to the IPv6 Internet from an IPv4 address. There are other transition mechanisms for that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms)

Enabling IPv6 on a service provider network is a lot more than just 'flicking a switch'. Addressing the core network is relatively simple, but LNS devices (Broadband termination from BTWS) are a lot more complicated. In a lot of cases, the main vendors don't support it, or have only recently released code that will allow it. Service providers typically do not run bleeding edge firmware on their routers if they can help it, as any bug/issue can affect service for thousands of customers. ISP's like their code well tested.

A few vendors and their products that work as LNS.

Juniper E/ERX - No IPv6 subscriber support
Juniper MX - Subscriber support for LNS only recently introduced (unsure about IPv6)
Redback SmartEdge - IPv6 subscriber support for LNS only recently introduced
Cisco ASR1k - IPv6 support for LNS subscribers works quite well.

You can see from this spread that actually, IPv6 code readiness is not really there yet; At least not across the board.

It is probably worth pointing out that google state that the US (among other countries) has a higher rate of adoption than most. I believe part of the reason they are able to do this is due to them being able to use BRAS termination for their subscribers (PPPoE from the customers premises to the ISP)

In the UK if using BTWS to provide the backhaul, you must use LNS termination (PPPoE/A from the customers premises to BT. PPP via L2TP from BT to the ISP). BRAS is a lot simpler to implement that LNS, and if you ever look at vendor road maps, you will usually see them roll out BRAS before LNS.

Other than the subscriber termination, there is the v6 enabled services that go along side it, such as DNS, NTP, Mail etc. The amount of services that a ISP needs to run in order for you to receive an internet connection would surprise you.

Finally, all this stuff takes time. Along with this, staff need to do build/upgrade/support the existing IPv4 network. Zen have recently extended their network into 200 exchanges, allowing them to lower the cost of their FTTC and ADSL products. When resourcing work, what will actually attract the majority of customers, and therefore is better to do? Work that reduces product costs and provides more services, or work that currently gives no noticeable benefit to the end user?

Work on deploying IPv6 within Zen I'm sure is progressing, but is likely slower than projects that will actually bring revenue into the business.

The views above are mine, and not that of my employer, past present or future etc, blah blah.

Dave

yeah crazy timing eh.

I think you have misunderstood me, cg-nat may still be required by some isp's yes because ipv6 adoption has been too slow, its now an "old" tech with poor takeup, its not "new".

However ipv6 is required to reduce future impact of cg-nat services, when ipv4 runs out and if ipv6 is not mainstream at that point then things get messy, with ipv6 takeup as low as it is its not looking like it will be mainstream any time soon.

Thanks for the info on the LNS terminations, but since aaisp are using ipv6 using BTw connections, any idea how they managing it?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

any idea how they managing it?

AAISP use their own Firebrick product for their LNS termination. Maybe it doesn't scale to the size of BT retail etc.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

any idea how they managing it?

AAISP use their own Firebrick product for their LNS termination. Maybe it doesn't scale to the size of BT retail etc.

And look at the problems they have with it... (or at least used to have)

Crashes, random fail-overs etc. I'd rather take a tried & tested lump of hardware to head my my live customer connections.

I think their product is pretty stable now - certainly I am impressed by the capabilities suggested on the web page etc, and I think they like to do things right, but as James says, scale is a different issue.

I think you have misunderstood me, cg-nat may still be required by some isp's yes because ipv6 adoption has been too slow, its now an "old" tech with poor takeup, its not "new".

You're missing the point here. CG-NAT has nothing to do with IPv6, nor its uptake. Even AAISP who have supplied v6 for many years will need to use it if they run out of v4 address space.

An ISP could offer IPv6 only access when they run out of IPv4, however I suspect they would have a lot of angry customers unable to reach their favourite websites. CG-NAT is probably going to happen for all ISPs. Its just a matter of how long they can hold out on the addresses they have.

As a side note, RIPE (the organisation which supplies IP addresses to UK among others) ran out of IPv4 addresses in September 2012. All any ISP in the UK can now get is a /23 (512 addresses) which is hardly worth bothering with.

CG-NAT is for giving access to the IPv4 internet when you do not have a globally unique IPv4 address. Exactly the same as home routers typically work. You will get an RFC1918 address (typically 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x) and this is NATed to a routable address. In the case of CG-NAT however, a new block has been assigned for ISP use under RFC6598.

Most users likely won't actually notice in the short term. You have probably been using CG-NAT for years without realising. All mobile telephone providers in the UK that I'm aware of it use it to provide Internet access on handsets when connected via 3G etc.

Thanks for the info on the LNS terminations, but since aaisp are using ipv6 using BTw connections, any idea how they managing it?

As has been mentioned they use their own Firebrick. Unfortunately this is missing a bunch of features a lot of ISP's would require, such as OSPF, IS-IS, MPLS, and LDP. Also they are limited to 1GE ports, whereas a lot of the larger ISPs will be looking at 10GE and beyond.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

plusnet seem to be weird over it the same as zen however when BT roll it out plusnet will surely follow.

Plusnet ran a first customer trial which ended in July 2012.

They've recently been running a staff only trial and last week launched a second customer trial. A few users are now running on IPv6.

In reply to a post by Geordish:

Most users likely won't actually notice in the short term. You have probably been using CG-NAT for years without realising. All mobile telephone providers in the UK that I'm aware of it use it to provide Internet access on handsets when connected via 3G etc.

3's mobile broadband SIM's don't. I suspect their voice SIMs do.

In reply to a post by jelv:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

plusnet seem to be weird over it the same as zen however when BT roll it out plusnet will surely follow.

Plusnet ran a first customer trial which ended in July 2012.

They've recently been running a staff only trial and last week launched a second customer trial. A few users are now running on IPv6.

dude you a bit late here, you talking about a trial I am already aware off and that started after I made that post.

but anyway the plusnet trial isnt open, not everyone that applied was accepted, and given that their first trial was over a year ago ano nothing happened for several months after its entirely possible the same could happen again, so its good plusnet have started a new trial but its a wait and see if it means anything in terms of allowing more people on to it. As it stands it does seem petty from plusnet that they accepted almost everyone and said they will be overstretching themselves to make a few more accounts.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 17-Dec-13 01:25:24)

In reply to a post by stuorguk:

ISP's like Zen are holding back innovation. I could understand if there was a big cost implication, but there isn't. I bet all their hardware has supported IPV6 for years. You just have to spend a bit of time training up staff, and testing it. It's just lazy.

You can tell from that statement that you're absolutely not aware of what it actually means to deploy IPv6 in a large scale network. It's a darn sight more costly, complex and involved than you're making out.

I am surprised Zen aren't a leader on this, but equally, I can understand why not.

Does it not occur to you that some people want ipv6 for development purposes?

In reply to a post by ukwiz:

Does it not occur to you that some people want ipv6 for development purposes?

apparently we can migrate sites to ipv6 without our own endpoint been ipv6

Post deleted by Andrue