[AusNOG] IPv6

[Anthony Bortolotto]

The person who turned it on in the first place would need to know what IPv6 is. It is not turned on by default on most customer CPE’s because not every network or device supports it and the manufacturer doesn’t want returned equipment because ‘it doesn’t work’ when they bought it at Harvey Norman because the ISP hasn’t deployed it correctly.

Then you move to the customer that would potentially want to create a ‘port forward’ to a device using an IPv6 address which obviously isn’t going to work so it is easier for them to not use it.

Less than 10% of our customers utilise our IPv6 deployment even though we have it turned on by default and manage the stack at the same priority of IPv4.

I welcome the day it is on by default but it’s the humans that is the problem. You could say that about IT in general though…

From: Robert Hudson [mailto:hudrob at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 10:33 AM
To: Anthony Bortolotto
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net; Mark Delany
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv6


On 01/04/2015 10:15 AM, "Anthony Bortolotto" <a.bortolotto at infinite.net.au<mailto:a.bortolotto at infinite.net.au>> wrote:
>
> ISPs are hesitant because either they don't understand themselves or don't want to have educate their customers. It’s the humans, not the tech that is the issue.

There is little to no customer education required for dual-stack. My grandmother had IPv6, but wouldn't know (or care), nor does she have to do anything different to what she did before she started receiving an IPv6 allocation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 9:20 AM
> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] IPv6
>
> On 01Apr15, Mark Andrews allegedly wrote:
> >
> > In message <CAOu9xNJbkKhU3DbTjmX1LG5hcpx+uS-6XxOjajd3rS=wHEurFg at mail.gmail.com<mailto:wHEurFg at mail.gmail.com>>, Robert Hudson writes:
> > >
> > > Right now, it seems that some ISPs/carriers are deciding to invest
> > > in NAT/PAT (or CGN, if that's really a thing) rather than IPv6.  Why?
>
> > No, its been selected because ISPs as a whole have procastinated about
> > delivering IPv6
>
> Not sure it's an either/or situation. Even if you deploy IPv6 everywhere you still have to offer IPv4 reachability for your customers.
>
> Hopefully what Robert is observing is not an alternative to IPv6, rather it's a means of giving customers access to those recalcitrant IPv4-only destinations.
>
> On the bright side, the more IPv6 you deploy the less traffic will need to pass through your CGN. IOWs, deploying IPV6 could actually save you some coin!
>
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150401/21e122c7/attachment.html>