Ben I think everyone thinks it's the right thing and as you say it's just a matter of time.
Neil Sent from my iPhone > On 5 Sep 2014, at 18:56, "Ben King" <b...@warwicknet.com> wrote: > > Just to dive in on this debate. > > We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe > it's the right thing to do and at our scale it's much more feasible. > > However I can tell you from experience that once you run with v6 live > with real customers for a while there are many small issues that come > to the surface, things we have found include: > > 1) The 'commodity' CPEs (in our case Zyxel and Netgear), have slightly > flakey v6 implementations that are far from auto configuring and break > occasionally in random and unpredictable ways. The Netgears are > particularly horrible as they don't dual stack and require two PPPOE > sessions. All of them have really basic v6 with all or nothing > firewalls, etc. It's all pretty immature and lacks the polish of a > battle tested solution. I am sure someone will suggest a 'good' > commodity v6 CPE, but as we have our VDSL2 network things like chipset > compatibility have to outrank v6. > > 2) Random sites and services not working on v6. Recently a customer > called to complain MS Skydrive wasn't working for them, the answer was > to turn off v6 on that customers CPE, and it's just not worth the time > to investigate why and fix for v6. > > 3) Even on our side of the fence we encounter problems with what > should be a robust solution by now, for example we use 7200s for our > BNGs and implement basic traffic policing on PPPOE sessions, works > fine on v4 traffic it works fine on v6 it either works in one > direction or not at all. > > All of the above are trivial issues and with a bit of spit and polish > by the vendors could be sorted pretty quickly, but they won't sort > these issues until take up is at such a level it's a problem. > > We need that 'killer app' to truly drive demand from end customers and > then it will all come together I am sure. > > Regards... Ben > > Sent from my iPhone > >>> On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:33, "Neil J. McRae" <n...@domino.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/09/2014 08:49, "Andy Davidson" <a...@nosignal.org> wrote: >>> >>> That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking >>> about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only >>> NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. >> >> Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately >> its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix >> all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. >> >>> >>> Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; >>> giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity >>> to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the >>> home doesn¹t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and >>> getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because >>> there¹s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. >> >> See above. >> >> Regards, >> Neil. >
