On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 7:35 AM Josh Luthman <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/message/RVQAGWWVBNIHLWYH7MBRWWLUGLI4JWHQ/
