Re: V6 still not supported

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 3/9/22 1:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
>
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.

Do customers ever complain about double NAT's?

Mike

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:32 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG 
> <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
>     On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>     > It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.
>
>     I completely agree.
>
>     I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning,
>     repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.
>
>     But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has
>     been for
>     the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no excuse
>     for
>     not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.
>
>     > Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply. They're
>     doing
>     > massive infrastructure work and recently started offering
>     symmetrical
>     > gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON deployment. No
>     > IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a person who
>     > even knew what it was.
>
>     I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON provider.  At
>     least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is and know
>     that it's on their future list without even being in planing /
>     testing
>     phase.
>
>     > Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no plans
>     for it.
>
>     ....
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Grant. . . .
>     unix || die