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 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/IGRYEPZRY2OTKSCPATD6DJKRJLHQAYOJ/
