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

[Mark Smith]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 23:13, 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
>

I don't think that is a real question. It reads more like an
artificial one to seed a tech support FAQ.

"QUESTION:

My Internet Service Provider is using IPv6 protocol and I am
experiencing connectivity issue. What can I do?

ANSWER:
If your Internet service provider is using an IPv6 protocol and you
are experiencing issues with online functions of the game, please make
sure that IPv4 protocol support is enabled in your router settings."

So an ISP supplied a router that only had IPv6 enabled? I doubt that
has ever happened, but if it has, switching on IPv4 on the router
isn't going to do anything because an "IPv6 only" ISP isn't going to
provide IPv4 on the WAN side either.


> 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/
>

I remember that article. I gave up reading it properly after a couple
of paragraphs, because there was no good explanation of the specific
reasons to stop deploying IPv6.

Here's the full paragraph that starts with what you quoted. The second
sentence is the standout.

"IPv6, for its own sake, offered no value to the business at all. *The
problems with our network were not going to be solved by adding IPv6*.
But there was an opportunity for a truly transformational project, a
new global network architecture, designed for our business today, not
the business we were 20 years ago. A new network, designed for
collaboration, ease of management and service agility, which happened
to include IPv6 as one of its (many) new features."

So they have much bigger problems - a complex network that has grown
over time, and sounds like it has no overriding and unifying
architecture.

 IPv6 can't solve a bad network architecture and topology, just like a
badly designed and constructed building will still be bad even if the
bricks are good.

Then he contradicts his own earlier statement about stopping deploying IPv6:

"The new network will be fully dual-stacked for now, and frankly, for
the foreseeable future."

Huh? I though they stopped deploying IPv6?



> 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