Just saw this, maybe the momentum for IPv6 will improve

[#1]

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6920-after-staff-trials-sky-to-trial-ipv6-with-customers.html

[#2]

So Plusnet will have missed the opportunity to be ahead of the game. The length of time our trial has been running with no sign of it moving forward and the failure to get it working correctly on the bngs is ridiculous!

[#3]

True, strange that the 'new' kit can't manage current technology (though the older kit can).  We all know IPv6 is supposed to be the future but the future starts now (give or take 30ms).

[#4]

I wonder if BT as a company held back because they came across some new ipv4 blocks on the market?
When I was beta testing the hh5 which now seems ages ago back in 2013, I asked their dev team about the ipv6 in the interface and was told BT would rollout ipv6 by the end of the next year which was 2014.  It never happened.

[#5]

I can think of any number of reasons for 'holding back' on IPv6 rollout.
I would have thought that an ISP would want to minimise the period for which they are running 'dual-stack'. There will be more faults and more queries with 2 networks and more to maintain. There will be some skill and judgement in determining the optimum point to move.
If an ISP with the profile of Sky makes a move that must stimulate the others not to be left behind.

[#6]

I agree its inevitable support initially calls will increase and it be harder for tech support to deal with it, but the advantage of doing it earlier than needed is you get that out of the way and there is less urgency.
I expect sky have much more customers on their own hardware than other isp's due to the auth lockin so it will be easier for them to do a rollout.

[#7]

Quote from: jelv

So Plusnet will have missed the opportunity to be ahead of the game. The length of time our trial has been running with no sign of it moving forward and the failure to get it working correctly on the bngs is ridiculous!

I don't think the issue with IPv6 has anything to do with the actual BNGs themselves, but it's the RADIUS servers. There is a post somewhere (I think from Paul) acknowledging the problem, but I guess it's a low priority to fix with resources being used elsewhere.
As for being ahead of the game, I think it comes down to ISPs making that call before they run out of IPv4 addresses. There is certainly no additional selling point for a major ISP to support IPv6.

[#8]

Does that suggest that Sky expect to be running out of IPv4 addresses and have decided to work on IPv6 before its too late?

[#9]

Quote from: w23

Does that suggest that Sky expect to be running out of IPv4 addresses,

Not necessarily.
I could say that everyone has run out of addresses. We have forgotten that we are all using PAT/NAT on our home routers because we can't have a globally routable IPv4 address per device.
It does mean they think that there is a business advantage. It could be that they think NAT will become an issue for multi-player games or some other application in the near future. Or it could simply be that they can have a marketing campaign to distinguish their product.
Who knows what has triggered Sky. Perhaps they just want to be first and can't risk BT beating them

[#10]

or it could just be someone at sky knows it for the good of the internet and they have persuaded their boss to allow the rollout.

[#11]

For Sky to be persuaded to do anything they will be convinced of a solid business reason. That is the kind of company they are. They may be pioneers in some respects, but in being that they know what their focus is and are quite deliberate about it.
For me that is the really interesting thing about the Sky development.
IPv6 has been on the horizon for so long it seems. The reality is that take up is exponential. When the base is small that can be deceptive and people can miss it. But take a look at the <a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html">Google IPv6 Stats</a> and see how long IPv6 penetration takes to double and then how many more times it needs to double to become significant. Once were are there it may soon be a requirement for some new application (global addressing for every device).
Once IPv6 is at that point it will become the primary service for many. Then who will care about updating their IPv4 network or address plans.
Basically, if you haven't done the engineering and are not ready to launch IPv6 now you may not survive.

[#12]

Quote from: MrToast

It does mean they think that there is a business advantage. It could be that they think NAT will become an issue for multi-player games or some other application in the near future.

If I recall correctly XBOX One already games solely over IPv6, but uses a workaround (Teredo) to route IPv6 packets over IPv4. Having native IP addresses would probably reduce a lot of support issues called by different NAT configurations

[#13]

Quote from: MrToast

For Sky to be persuaded to do anything they will be convinced of a solid business reason. That is the kind of company they are. They may be pioneers in some respects, but in being that they know what their focus is and are quite deliberate about it. For me that is the really interesting thing about the Sky development. IPv6 has been on the horizon for so long it seems. The reality is that take up is exponential. When the base is small that can be deceptive and people can miss it. But take a look at the <a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html">Google IPv6 Stats</a> and see how long IPv6 penetration takes to double and then how many more times it needs to double to become significant. Once were are there it may soon be a requirement for some new application (global addressing for every device). Once IPv6 is at that point it will become the primary service for many. Then who will care about updating their IPv4 network or address plans. Basically, if you haven't done the engineering and are not ready to launch IPv6 now you may not survive.

not necessarily it can be enough simply to persuade any costs are within a reasonable amount and it wont degrade the service.
ipv6 rollout is inevitable, some people have their head stuck in the sands thinking its optional and can be avoided, but it has to happen at some point, so the costs are there regardless, its then juist a choice of when to take on those costs.
you also thinking about this the wrong way, the availability has to become before a killer app, its not the other way round.

[#14]

Quote from: jelv

So Plusnet will have missed the opportunity to be ahead of the game.

ISTM this announcement is that Sky will start their first customer *trial* of IPv6 - and therefore it just brings them up to the same level as Plusnet were, oh, three years ago.
It would be different though if their trial is open to everyone who wants it, and not limited in numbers.

[#15]

Do you honestly think that if they have been trialling it with staff for a while and are moving it to user trials it will be that long before they roll it out? I can't see it taking them 3 years!