Plusnet alternatives with IPv6

[#1]

Since plusnet show no internest in providing IPv6 I've been looking at the alternatives that provide IPv6, unlimited fibre and a static IP.

So far I've only found Zen Internet and AAISP. Are there any others I've missed?

Both are more expensive which is annoying.

[#2]

Sky have started providing IPv6 connections. 

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/latest-ipv6-network-operator-measurements/

[#3]

No static addressing on Sky, although speaking to the guys that built it the prefix delegations are relatively stable (at least for an always-on connection).

[#4]

Goscomb apparently offer IPv6 - http://www.goscomb.net/support/ipv6 - can't comment on whether it's any good (and I think they may be more business broadband than home)

[#5]

As mentioned above, Sky isn't static, but they say they will try to maintain the prefix, even if you have disconnected for several days (7-10 days is goal but not guaranteed). He.net runs a free dynamic dns service which includes IPv6, and will do the glue too, if your domain registrar allows you to use other name servers. For a truly static IP, one might run a tunnel to he.net - depends on your use case. I checked again with PlusNet, 3 or 4 weeks ago. They confirm, no IPv6 trial available for those not already on the trial. And confirm they have no plans to roll out IPv6. Unfortunately I have another year on the Plusnet contract.

[#6]

Coming up next year (how many times have we heard that...?) BT is supposedly going to get somewhere with it!

[#7]

Some BT connections already have IPv6.  My friend has a BT infinity and I turned on IPv6 PPP on the Vigor router he uses, just to test it, and it came up. Can't see if the prefix is static but given that BT will not provide static ipv4 on a residential account. I doubt it. Looked ok other than that but I could not do a full test at that point because the whole internal net is currently set up to use a tunnel from he.net.

A dynamic IPv6 /64 is a total so-and-so for some people, (like me) of course, because when you put devices on your internal net that you want to be static (like a server for instance) it ends up being dynamic internally as well. Especially bad if you want to use a VPN.  It's like having your postcode change every few days AND someone coming in to your house and moving all the furniture while you're out!

[#8]

.....Oh, which makes me think that plusnet probably will not be too far behind BT even if there are no published plans.  BT do own plus net and the products usually follow.

[#9]

---

@jedi98 wrote:

A dynamic IPv6 /64 is a total so-and-so for some people, (like me) of course, because when you put devices on your internal net that you want to be static (like a server for instance) it ends up being dynamic internally as well. Especially bad if you want to use a VPN.  It's like having your postcode change every few days AND someone coming in to your house and moving all the furniture while you're out!

---

You don't have to use your public facing IP address for that though. Anything that you want to access internally can still use the fe80:: address that get auto-allocated. Failing that you can set up name resolution (Dynamic DNS for internet facing or PNRP or link-local broadcast) so that the addresses follow the endpoints around. Not sure how VPN would work though. Guess you'd have to set up a ULA address or something like that.

[#10]

You don't have to use your public facing IP address for that though....

Oh yes there's lots of ways around, I could probably come up with a few more.  It's just a bit of a pain that's all.  Never have seen the argument (once we went past dialup) for not having a static IP if you want one, it's not like the ISP can save on addresses that way because almost everyone is connected all the time.

My main point was that under IP4, using NAT (because most people are) you can set up an internal network where there are static servers and extend that across sites with a VPN if needed. Nothing the ISP does affects it, however if you want to do IPv6 properly, fully routed and firewalled, fully DNSed, if your prefix is dynamic then things get a bit hinkey!  Not impossible but distinctly kludgy.

If it were me designing the network it would be a prime factor.  But it's a good job it's not me designing it because every network I touch rebels against at the moment.  I must have said something nasty to a router and it told all it's friends.

[#11]

I agree that having a dynamic IPv6 prefix is an absolute pain. The dynamic DNS is tolerable, but it has led to me having to learn far more about linux network adapter config manipulation than I would ever have wished to.

[#12]

---

Never have seen the argument (once we went past dialup) for not having a static IP if you want one, it's not like the ISP can save on addresses that way because almost everyone is connected all the time.

For many it's nothing more than MONEY.

BT charge a monthly fee for a fixed address (yes, a monthly fee, not a one off setup fee) which last time I saw a bill was £5/month ! WalkWalk will do fixed addresses if you pay more for a business product.

The fact that both of these CAN do fixed addresses on their networks (and for BT will do it on the same product if you pay extra) suggests that it's not technically difficult - just something they do to make life "awkward" for power users who might be persuaded to pay extra.

[#13]

There is a cost to running the infrastructure associated with a static IP though. All of a sudden it means that your (possible multiple) DHCP servers need to co-ordinate with each other and your user management system. For example Plusnet could run 1 DHCP server per gateway to spread the load and position physical and logical connections next to each other. With static IP addresses they need to make sure that you get the right IP address no matter which gateway you connect to. They also need to maintain the list of which IP addresses are 'reserved' per user account (whereas traditionally DHCP will run at the MAC address level). Why would they put up with this overhead for every single user, when it's only the power users (who might be persuaded to pay extra) who need it?

It's a bit like questioning why they charge extra for the 78mbps product as opposed to the 39mbps. That's nothing more than money either. Everything in business always is.

[#14]

BT charge a monthly fee for a fixed address

I am so not getting a BT DSL on principle.  Plusnet's pricing is much fairer and much more transparent, I'll wait and see what comes along IPv6 on here. I check the router now and then to see if it's got turned on on the Q.T.

Meanwhile Linux server ----> he tunnel ----> IPv6 works fine. I could also set up my draytek router to talk to the tunnel if needed but I prefer having the flex of a server-as-router solution right now.  That tunnel forced me to learn about IPv6 properly, which I did need to do, otherwise I would have skimped it and probably regretted it later.

[#15]

---

@matthews wrote:

There is a cost to running the infrastructure associated with a static IP though. All of a sudden it means that your (possible multiple) DHCP servers need to co-ordinate with each other and your user management system.

Like they do anyway

For example Plusnet could run 1 DHCP server per gateway to spread the load and position physical and logical connections next to each other. With static IP addresses they need to make sure that you get the right IP address no matter which gateway you connect to. They also need to maintain the list of which IP addresses are 'reserved' per user account (whereas traditionally DHCP will run at the MAC address level).

I strongly suspect that the DHCP used for DSL lines is subtly different to the DHCP many of us are used to on LANs - and is most likely tied to the DSL login. For one thing, those providers with dynamic IPs only are not using RFC compliant DHCP servers since the RFCs for DHCP are very clear about keeping the same address for a client as far as is possible.

Put another way, those providers with dynamic IPs have actually gone out of their way to make the address change at each sign-in !

As an aside ... I'm active(ish) on the ISC DHCP mailing list. We've not had one for a while, but we used to get regular questions along the lines of "how can we make the address keep changing" - normally from some small ISP with stupid manglement. Our advice was generally "find another job, because your customers will be deserting you".

Why would they put up with this overhead for every single user, when it's only the power users (who might be persuaded to pay extra) who need it?

Why rip people off for something they have to pay for anyway ? If just one customer has a static IP, then the infrastructure has to support that. The cost for supporting a million static IPs is no different to supporting just one.

It's a bit like questioning why they charge extra for the 78mbps product as opposed to the 39mbps. That's nothing more than money either. Everything in business always is.

---