[NANOG] Re: IPv6 Legacy IP Warning Stickers

[Andrew Latham via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

Brandon

I don't disagree and hope more consumer demand helps alter things. I would
like to have
the option to use IPv6 if I want. One ISP at the street has some IPv6 in
their peerings but
none to customers which means it is possible. Another ISP at the street
looks to be using
CGNAT for customers on FTTH with zero IPv6 peering.

And for those secretly taking bets yesterday. The work at the street did
knock me offline
for most of the day. :(

Maybe it would be a good discussion point, what happens when every user is
behind a
CGNAT in the near future?

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 2:26 PM Brandon Martin via NANOG <
nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

> On 3/26/25 14:00, Andrew Latham via NANOG wrote:
> > Today yet another ISP is running Fiber in the utility easement at the
> > street. I checked and they do not offer IPv6 or have ANY IPv6 peering.
> >
> > I have offered the hard to find IPv6 Legacy Warning stickers on my
> > Redbubble profile. About a month before any meeting or event I see a bulk
> > order for Amish IPv6 stickers designed by Phil Benchoff and hard to find
> > post Google+. I have the markup/profit set to the lowest setting and have
> > made maybe $8 over 5+ years.
> >
> > Linky:
> https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Legacy-IP-Warning-by-gringomalvado/38585698.EJUG5
> > Ranting a bit as I have four ISPs boxes at the street and two of them do
> > not have IPv6 in 2025. Converting my frustration into finding Phil and
> > sending him some coffee money.
>
> Until consumers care, bulk-subscriber driven residential ISPs probably
> won't care.  They have to provide IPv4 anyway, and most of the startups
> are stuck running CGNAT to do it already, so IPv6 is just another
> operational hassle for them.
>
> I don't like it, but it's the way it is.
>
> The major content providers could do a fair bit on this front.  They
> could start by supporting IPv6 at all (sadly many don't), and for those
> that do support IPv6 (which is a lot of them - and thank you!), they
> could nudge their customers into getting it enabled on the grounds that
> it may improve their experience (which is true since it can and usually
> will bypass overloaded CGNATs).
>
> OTOH, I just had an issue where I ended up disabling IPv6 for a customer
> and improving their all-important speed test metrics by 50% across the
> board to all test providers who support IPv6.  My peering is pretty
> symmetric, but I assume their (older but far from obsolete) router has
> hardware offload for IPv4 but not IPv6 since that seems to be the
> bottleneck in all cases.  Obviously I could tell them to get a new
> router, but we know how that's going to end.
>
> --
> Brandon Martin
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
>
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/SAKPWS7VVM7LOC54NNMNNW6PO6ZLYFDU/


-- 
- Andrew "lathama" Latham -
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/OB5A7Q6SORCBMC64M47XEP76XC7NH3UW/