IPv6 - what's the problem?
@summers wrote:
Probably they still have IPv4 address available, so they aren't forced to use IPv6 due to lack of addresses.
CGNAT - no ISP is forced to go IPv6, and even if they do, then for the foreseeable future their customers still need IPv4 connectivity. CGNAT allows then to give customers an RFC1918 address (of which there are 4 million in the 10.0.0.0/8 block) and NAT multiple customers behind a small number of IPs.
If I had to hazard a guess, BT will at some stage switch to IPv6, and as both plusnet and BT have common ownership, plusnet then notices a cost saving can be made by them switching to IPv6 as well.
That ship went past years ago - BT Retail has had IPv6 by default for several years, as have Sky, and ... Clearly a lot of ISPs have added IPv6 given that stats from the likes of Google show that just over 20% of their access is now over IPv6 globally, and for the UK it's almost 22%. I doubt that any of those ISPs have been "forced" to add native IPv6 - but they have done, presumably because they've looked ahead and realised that they will need to sooner or later so they might as well be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
@bmc wrote:
I would suspect that as equipment is replaced as part of normal operations the replacements will have IPV6 capabilities. When the time comes a significant part of their network will be ready with a smaller spend to replace the part that isn't.
On that basis, their network should be pretty well all IPv6 ready by now - how many years is it since they ran the first IPv6 trial ? However I've read comments that their standard customer router doesn't do IPv6 properly - but given that it's more or less the same router and BT Retail provide with a different badge on, it's hard to see what the problem could be.
There's a little mentioned fact that as more companies and ISP's adopt IPV6 their IPV4 addresses become available for use thereby abating the urgency to move due to lack od IPV4 addresses.
Not really. I doubt that many are handing back their IPv4 allocations just yet. Perhaps a few, but that will be just a drop in the ocean - not enough for others to sit back and say "plenty to go around now".
As you say, there's almost certainly an element of manglement having sat down, done the sums, and decided that they'll lose less because of disgruntled customers than it'll cost them to do IPv6 properly 
EDIT: It's just a pity that their manglement won't just come out and say what their plans are. All we get are people (apologies for anyone a bit higher up posting here) down in the ranks telling us that "something will be happening" - presumably because that's what the official line is internally.
@summers wrote:
@SimonHobson I don't think my plusnet account has *ever* been on a 10.0.0.0/8 address. I'm currently on an 81.174.128.0/18 address. I know that plusnet did trials in CGNAT but I havn't seen any sign that it has been rolled out. Does anyone know any different?
I didn't say Plusnet were using CGNAT (yet), but some will be out of necessity. It's notable that on mobile connections you generally only get an RFC1918 address.
On the plusnet hardware, @bobpullen said in the post pinned at the top of this topic, that the BNG routers hadn't yet been configured to do IPv6, and that the BNG routers were the main plusnet ones. Now this was in 2016, but I've heard nothing new since then.
Exactly - statement two years ago and nothing since
I've moved, got married, gained a grand-daughter (now nearly 2), and moved again since Plusnet ran their IPv6 trials.That rather puts things into perspective !