IPv6 Petition

[#1]

@SimonHobson

Well I am not to sure about your point that users do not need to know the in's and out's of it.

For example someone using windows 7 who is told to upgrade to windows 10  might think that is a good move to make because it must be better but numerous comments by users on various forums have felt it was not a good move for one reason or another.

It was also felt by some PN forum members that the changes made to this site were unnecessary and prefered the old site but I accept they had no choice in the matter.

I accept sooner are later the change will be made but for someone like me with no knowledge of the subject I simply need to know, will I notice anything when the change takes place and even more important could anything go wrong with the service I currently get during the switch from 4 to 6 ?

[#2]

I thought the rumour was BT was going live by the end of 2016 ?

A&A Have it up and running very well by all accounts.... worth a look http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-ipv6-tech.html

[#3]

Sky are moving its customers to IPv6 http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/01/sky-will-push-all-subscribers-onto-ipv6-netw...

Note Sky are not just offering a choice but making customers use IPv6, full stop (where the customer's router supports it). BT Retail are giving customers the choice currently to use IPv4 or IPv6.

[#4]

---

For example someone using windows 7 who is told to upgrade to windows 10  might think that is a good move to make because it must be better but numerous comments by users on various forums have felt it was not a good move for one reason or another

....

... will I notice anything when the change takes place and even more important could anything go wrong with the service I currently get during the switch from 4 to 6 ?

Fair points, but ...

It's nothing like the switch to Windows 10. For one thing, IPv6 basically does exactly the same as IPv4 - but with more addresses. In a lot of ways it's a bit like when (going back a bit) BT decide they are running out of numbers at an exchange and add an extra digit. Unlike with the W10 "upgrade", they don't rip out the exchange and all the cabling, and rebuild the local phone system and make users buy newer phones that are compatible with the new system. But the users do need to dial an extra digit to get connected - but only for those numbers on that exchange that are affected. When calling aunt Doris at the other end of the country, there's no difference at all.

So given that for most users (at least for now) the only difference is the longer addresses, and they rarely have to deal with addresses anyway, there's no difference. You go to www.somewebsite.com and the page loads - near enough just the same as without IPv6. There may be a slight difference in speed, but that's all.

IPv6 does allow lots of other neat stuff, but for now, most users won't see that - stuff will "just work" the same as you're used to.

But everyone will need to add IPv6 sooner or later. In some areas IPv4 addresses have already run out, and there are some IPv6 only services starting to appear. You don't need to worry that (say) Google is going to stop serving IPv4 any time soon, and if you don't happen to access any of those IPv6 only services then you won't be affected, but sooner or later I think most people will come across something.

And again, in the background, stuff will "work better" - eg torrent like services will not have to deal with NAT and I think will work a bit more reliably over IPv6. Users won't notice much since the odd NAT related problem usually gets masked by there being other peers that fill the gap - but overall things will work a little better behind the scenes.

This is why I say that most users don't need to know about it. Just like you don't need to know if the next car has upped the (diesel) injection pressure - all you care about is that the new one drinks a little less fuel than the old one. Us petrol heads might care, but most owners and drivers have no reason to even know.

Now, can anything go wrong ? Well yes it can.

A few years ago there was a global IPv6 day when a number of big tech firms (Google was one) switched their defaults to IPv6 for the day. Google in particular was able to collect large stats on users and problems they may have had. At the time, there were numerous routing issues so most switched back to having IPv4 as the default. Now most of them use IPv6 by default, and I think most OSs/browsers default to using IPv6 first if available such has been the progress in resolving issues. But if your system appears to be IPv6 connected, but in reality it isn't, then what you'll see is a delay in opening connections - ie your webpage will pause before it loads. This is because your system will attempt an IPv6 connection first, and then fall back to IPv4 when the IPv6 connection fails. This can happen if (for example) your local router dishes out IPv6 addresses internally and fails to "take them back" if the IPv6 connectivity fails. Using native connectivity from your ISP, you are unlikely to have this issue - but it can happen for those of us using a speartae tunnel from a provider like Hurricane Electric's Tunnelbroker service.

Lastly, remember that this is NOT replacing IPv4 with IPv6. IPv4 is going to be around for a looooooong time yet simply because there is so much of it and so many users still without IPv6. Give it another decade or so and I suspect we'll start seeing stats on "how much IPv4 is still in use" with pushes to get people to stop using it. We will also sooner or later start seeing IPv6-only ISPs - but that'll be further down the line (and in the meantime, there'll be horrible things like carrier-grade NAT to fudge things along for a few more years).

[#5]

---

@SimonHobson wrote:

---

Now most of them use IPv6 by default, and I think most OSs/browsers default to using IPv6 first if available such has been the progress in resolving issues. But if your system appears to be IPv6 connected, but in reality it isn't, then what you'll see is a delay in opening connections - ie your webpage will pause before it loads. This is because your system will attempt an IPv6 connection first, and then fall back to IPv4 when the IPv6 connection fails. This can happen if (for example) your local router dishes out IPv6 addresses internally and fails to "take them back" if the IPv6 connectivity fails. Using native connectivity from your ISP, you are unlikely to have this issue - but it can happen for those of us using a speartae tunnel from a provider like Hurricane Electric's Tunnelbroker service.

---

That issue should be largely mitigated now thanks to the advent of so-called 'Happy Eyeballs' implementations in most decent browsers that, when faced with both A and AAAA records for a target, sends off two near-simultaneous TCP connection requests. Whichever protocol (i.e. IPv4 or IPv6) gets a response first wins and the use of that protocol is then used for the remainder of the session. In the case of broken IPv6 stacks obviously only the IPv4 path is available and so IPv4 will win and the browser uses it without any delay.

[#6]

And there goes another of the potential downsides - thanks, I'd forgotten about that feature.

So I still hold that a normal user doesn't need to know. And in fact, I think the majority of users already on IPv6 have no idea - they've either changed ISP, or had an upgrade, and unknown to them they now have an IPv6 capable router provisioned by a provider that supports it.

The thing to remember is that the majority of home users sign up with ${ISP}, plug in the ${ISP} branded router that comes in the post, and just use that "as is". If you don't believe me, take a look with a WiFi sniffer and see what proportion of WiFi networks you see are of the format ${ISP}-xxxxxx rather than "Freds-WiFI' or other personalised names.

[#7]

> at some stage they will have to introduce it anyway due to running out of addresses on the current system so why do they not get on with it ?

Probably because right now, deploying IPv6 does *nothing* to reduce Plusnet's requirements for IPv4 addresses. Whether or not they provide IPv6, they still have to give every customer at least one IPv4 address to be able to connect to the majority of the Internet.

Furthermore, nobody's business plan includes putting content on IPv6 only. All content will either be IPv4+IPv6 or IPv4 only. So as long as your ISP provides you with IPv4 access, you have access to the Internet, bar the odd cat feeder. Content providers need only very few IPv4 addresses, and they have been sharing them for years (e.g. HTTP reverse proxies, HTTPS SNI, CDNs) so are not worried about running out of addresses.

Should Plusnet run out of IPv4 addresses to give to customers, they'll buy them on the open market (or use some of parent BT's stockpile). And when that no longer becomes an option, they will be forced into IPv4 address sharing: whether this is using NAT444 or NAT64, it's still another layer of NAT. Hopefully they'll take the NAT64 option, but that still involves building a large chunk of infrastructure.

Maybe they're hoping that the longer they leave this, a larger proportion of websites will be IPv6-enabled, so the less money they need to spend on NAT64 devices. Plus, any sort of address sharing involves problems dealing with things like handling police enquiries - they will have to keep detailed logs of which users are sharing the same IP address. The longer you can avoid this, the better.

It's worth also pointing out that many of the big *content* providers are stubbornly not putting their content on IPv6 - even well-funded and technically-respected organisations like the BBC.  This in turn makes IPv6 less attractive to deploy at the access side.

[#8]

> there are some IPv6 only services starting to appear

[*] Citation Required

[#9]

---

---

[*] Citation Required

OK, it's a bit contrived, but here's one for you

http://loopsofzen.co.uk

Mentioned in this thread

[#10]

I just applied for a /29 subnet for one of my customers who provisioned a PN business fibre account for a VOIP project we started last year and is now in the delivery phase.  I filled in the RIPE justification form exactly as requested and submitted a ticket.  I was surprised to get a response within a couple of hours...But yeah...It's the standard rejection, informing me I did not provide enough information but without saying what information is missing.  After dissecting the rejection, an A4 page of text, the only thing I can see which I might possibly have missed is a diagram but I would think it not too hard to visualise, from the description I provided.  So another 2 hours to draft a network diagram, which will never be looked at again.  I have now been waiting over 24 hours for a reply.

It is like being forced to play a perverse Christmas guessing game in slow motion.  How the heck is anyone expected to conduct business like this.  It could all be avoided with IPv6.

I added my name to the position but it took 2 attempts.  I can't recommend it to my referrals I am afraid as the confirmation suggests a donation is needed to complete the acceptance.  Something to keep in mind while pondering the relative dearth of signatures.

[#11]

Sad to say, if PN are messing you about like that, then go to a different provider. To be fairly blunt, business providers will supply a /29 without asking for justification - in fact, with one or two lines we've had at work, I've specifically said we don't need it and still got it !

Don't know if this will get modded out, but recent FTTC lines we've put in at work have been from Gradwell and Tempura (the latter being a Vodamoan reseller). They may not have snazzy portals like PN, but they won't make you sign the national anthem, backwards, while doing a handstand with one arm behind your back and drinking a glass of water when asking for IP allocations.

[#12]

Signed; but to get more coverage this needs to go out on the social media circles.  Too few people will be (regularly) on these forums. 

[#13]

Thanks for the suggestions.  Just wanted to add that PN approved the subnet shortly after I posted to the forum.

Still need to see progress on IP6.  There is a bunch of business opportunities being missed.

[#14]

I suspect they don't see much of a business opportunity in IPv6. Yes there will be a small number of customers asking for it, but probably not nearly enough to justify (in themselves) the costs involved.

Remember that probably 99+% of customers don't know what IPv6 is, and wouldn't know if they were using it or not.

If you want an indication of how many people just "sign up, plug in, use what arrives" try looking at the wireless networks in your neighbourhood. From where I'm sat, I can only see one network that isn't on a default name - there's BT..., SKY..., TALKTALK ..., one default TP-Link..., and an HP printer - plus just one non-default network.

Even the one not using a default wireless name robably doesn't care about NAT, or carrier grade NAT, or IP-what?

And at work, I've been looking into starting to use IPv6 - but not really gone very far given zero interest from manglement. We've not been asked about it at all, not once, by any of the customers we provide connectivity to. Not a single customer has ever asked about it.

[#15]

---

If you want an indication of how many people just "sign up, plug in, use what arrives" try looking at the wireless networks in your neighbourhood. From where I'm sat, I can only see one network that isn't on a default name - there's BT..., SKY..., TALKTALK ..., one default TP-Link..., and an HP printer - plus just one non-default network.

---

Exactly the same round here; with one notable exception which always makes me smile for some reason - an SSID of 'Pretty Fly For A WiFi'.