Re: IPv4 Pricing

["Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG" <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 7:35 AM Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>
wrote:

> Because your client doesn't want their device behind a router at the
> client site, or doesn't understand that they will use a router on the other
> side of that line, is a fine example of "not my problem".

No, that's not your problem in the scenario where you're their ISP, but I
can tell you this client will happily switch from your service to someone
else's (again, if you're not a monopoly) when the phone provider says "XYZ
ISP won't give you what you need, you need to switch to ABC ISP".


> Because you have 12 year old hardware and can't be down for a few hours,
> an ISP should support a /29?  I fail to see the logic.

No, the ISP should support a /29 because customers want a /29 instead of
trying to insert themselves into the role of "We're going to deny your
request because we've arbitrarily decided that what you need isn't a good
enough reason"...and because pretty much every competitor does support it.


> I have had 1 customer in 20 years ask about IPV6.  She had no idea what it
> was and only asked because her router (Netgear or something) setup asked
> for it.  You're also suggesting that IPv6 would improve services.  As
> someone that's tried IPv6 in the office, I found it only caused downtime
> and frustration and offered 0 benefit.  Why would I torture my customers
> with this v6 mess as it only frustrates the end user - they just want their
> Netflix to work!

Sure--that's pretty typical for residential customers.
It's a bit atypical for business customers.
Over a decade ago, I worked for a company that provided various IT services
for small businesses.
Nearly every single small business had a /29.  Most of them ran an Exchange
server, a phone server, Microsoft's RD Web, and/or whatever Microsoft's
remote access server VPN product was called on the IPs.
It beats having to install and configure something like HAProxy on the
router to redirect HTTP/HTTPS traffic to various servers sitting on private
blocks.


> > Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single national provider that
> doesn't have dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6.  Comcast, AT&T, Verizon,
> etc...they've all had it for years.
>
> Metronet/Tmobile.  Charter/Spectrum.  Centurylink.  If Comcast and Charter
> combine, you will lose that example.  AT&T doesn't have it everywhere, see
> their 2023 article:
> https://www.att.com/support/article/u-verse-high-speed-internet/KM1148998/
> Verizon looks to be at 6% back in 2022:
> https://community.verizon.com/t5/Fios-Home-Internet-Archive/IPv6-expanding-FINALLY/m-p/1553554

I could have sworn AT&T had it--but they aren't in my area.
I guess all these national providers that do offer IPv6 are just taking on
the added management costs for the fun of it.

-A
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/RVQAGWWVBNIHLWYH7MBRWWLUGLI4JWHQ/