[AusNOG] "However, for the best possible experience, we recommend enabling IPv6 on your network."

[Robert Hudson]

That blog raises a good point.

IPv6 on its own, just for the sake of adding IPv6 as a checkbox, when they
didn't need any of the features it offered on their existing network
infrastructure, using their existing processes, wasn't worth it.

But when re-structuring their internal network and processes, and
re-designing it for today's requirements, rather than those of 20 years
ago, IPv6 became an integral part of that plan, enabling capability that
they absolutely needed as a business but could not make use of with the old
constraints.

The good folks at IPv6 Now! many years ago were advocating dual-stack,
particularly in campus networks, for these very reasons (amongst others). A
previous employer took that approach - adding capability in addition to
IPv4, as opportunity arose (in line with a global strategy developed with
the help of Michael and Kevin).  We had 5,000 staff across 32 countries,
and as in the linked example, there was no business justification to
install IPv6 just for the sake of it - but, as a part of a global strategy
in a market where IoT is actually a real thing (our US operations had over
20m communications a day with devices in the field), IPv4's limitations
were proving to be a challenge.

All this is very different though to carrier or service provider networks.
At the same previous employer we ran a tender for replacing a series of
fragmented country- based MPLS networks with an international backbone
provided by a separate provider again with a global MPLS network - lack of
proper IPv6 capability was a deselection criteria (as our strategy noted we
needed IPv6 capability in our products, and the internal networks are used
heavily for development and testing), and was used to help create our
shortlist - yes, some carriers missed the opportunity to bid on a global
contract as a result of not having mature IPv6 capability.

Some service providers have held off on offering IPv6 on the last mile (and
potentially internally, though an inside-out build is needed for end-to-end
capability, so the last mile is the last place IPv6 will show up), citing
lack of demand (and the ability of things like CGNAT to solve some of the
issues they already had with IPv4, like not having enough IP addresses to
meet demand). I assume this was done in the hope that the investment to
enable IPv6 could be either delayed or slowed down until not being ready
would cost them revenue.

Others have cited lack of IPv6 ready equipment, or immaturity of that
equipment IPv6 capabilities. I know that at least one provider was unable
to offer their full set of standard services over IPv6 because of software
bugs preventing use of the same capabilities as were already possible on
IPv4. I hope doors at equipment vendors are being knocked down over this
already - there is really no excuse for immature IPv6 implementation in
network kit, IPv6 has been a thing for long enough now.

I suspect announcements like this, where consumers are effectively being
told that if the console says you don't have IPv6, you're not getting the
best experience, will start to tip the balance a little more toward
consumer-grade services offering dual-stack capability. The beauty of me in
my role as consumer is that I don't need to have a solid need for IPv6, I
just have to want it, and I can choose an ISP/RSP on that basis. Now you
can add "

Lack of end-to-end IPv6 *is already* costing network providers and
equipment suppliers money and/or opportunity, and that will only
accelerate. Fun times ahead for those who are slow to recognise this -
hopefully this announcement from Microsoft serves as a wake-up call for
those who are dragging the chain, no matter where in the stack they sit.

On Fri, 22 Feb. 2019, 11:13 pm Christopher Hawker, <me at chrishawker.com.au>
wrote:

> I’m not surprised that game devs like Ubisoft aren’t supporting IPv6.
> Consoles using v6 aren’t any good if the game companies don’t offer servers
> with v6 connectivity...
>
> https://support.ubi.com/en-US/Faqs/000024812/IPv6-connectivity-issues
>
> However, there is an interesting article on the APNIC Blog about why Tom
> Perrine (working for a global game company) killed their IPv6 project.
>
> “IPv6, for its own sake, offered no value to the business at all.”
> https://blog.apnic.net/2018/02/01/killed-ipv6-project/
>
> CH.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 9:47 pm, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri., 22 Feb. 2019, 21:14 Christopher Hawker, <me at chrishawker.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> I dare say Sony won’t be too far behind...
>>
>
>
> Microsoft jumped in quite big around 5 years ago, here's a Nanog
> presentation on what they did.
>
> Xbox One: IPv6, Teredo, andbIPsec
> https://youtu.be/VSjljW4clPM
>
> Back in 2016 Tore Anderson discovered the PlayStation doing some IPv6,
> although at the time it almost seemed to be about measuring how much IPv6
> was out there.
>
>
> https://toreanderson.github.io/2016/06/15/ipv6-support-in-the-playstation-4.html
>
>
>
>
>> CH.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 22 Feb 2019, at 8:23 pm, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "IPv6 on Xbox One"
>> > https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/networking/ipv6-on-xbox-one
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > AusNOG mailing list
>> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> 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/20190223/17494129/attachment.html>