Re: IPv4 Pricing

[Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

You continue to say the ISP should do something, but give no actual reason
why (short of examples as to why it's necessary today like a local Exchange
server).  This is why us and other ISPs continue to not have IPv6.  I'm
sorry you don't see that.

AT&T *DOES* have IPv6 in some areas.  It is not universally available.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:48 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron () heyaaron com>
wrote:

> 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/IGRYEPZRY2OTKSCPATD6DJKRJLHQAYOJ/