dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4868
btrower
join:2013-10-26

2 recommendations

btrower

Member

[INTERNET] When will IPV6 be available on Cogeco? (2)

Sorry for creating a new thread. I just created this account to post on the older thread, but my account does not have permission...

It is so unbelievable that ipv6 is unsupported that I actually called Cogeco to confirm. They say they don't have it, but are 'working on it'. They don't have any idea of when it will be in place. Amazing. Is this a peering issue of some kind? Did they not get their block from IANA? Is it conceivable they have a significant amount of equipment that does not support ipv6? Are their IT/Network people actually unable to set it up somehow? I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason they can't turn this on in days or a few weeks, except maybe that (like in Windows) there are issues with implementations. If that is the case, then the world should be re-thinking the whole ipv6 thing.

I am a 'computer guy'. I do many things, but among them I taught networking at a couple of colleges. I have held off setting up for ipv6 because of the many issues with implementation. However, I thought of myself as being something of a laggard and was under the impression it had long since made it out to at least major ISPs.

I was just about to set up some testing where I require ipv6 and could not figure out how to get my Cogeco ipv6 addresses. I resigned myself to using ipv6 DHCP only to discover my Cogeco router is not getting an address from ipv6 DHCP.

Before calling Cogeco to confirm, I gathered from reading the other thread that contrary to any sane expectation, Cogeco is actually unable to support ipv6.

WTF? Anybody with a hint of networking knowledge knows that IPv4 is not sufficient for the emerging network. IMO, ipv6 is a simply awful solution to the problem and the proof of that is the fact it was not adopted many years ago. However, it is the only solution currently available. Either we implement ipv6 or we implement something better. Short term, ipv6 is the only viable answer.

How can any company offering network stuff not support ipv6 as a matter of course?

IPv4 is already dead. We are only using NAT and DHCP to keep it on life-support.

If companies like Cogeco are not implementing ipv6 right now, then something has gone horribly wrong.

If Cogeco has a plan for this then it should be escalated immediately so it is done. If they do not have any sort of effective plan then it is time to complain to legislators. The companies administering our network infrastructure are being sheltered from true competition. In return, they are supposed to be responsible for stuff like this. If they are not going to step up, then we need to open things up to real competition.

Personally, I think that proper competition is the best answer. If North America had real competition in the past 30 years we would definitely have proper point to point addressing and likely gigabit+bandwidth at the curb.

Anybody from Cogeco can consider this message a complaint. I suggest other technical people raise their voices.

IpvNo
@start.ca

3 recommendations

IpvNo

Anon

Here's the thing, the reality of ipv6 is sinking in. Network admins everywhere realize it's just an annoyance and complicates things for no "real world" gain. Cogeco is like any other ISP, they will upgrade when they have to, because there is no real advantage and we will all be forced to use ipv6 when all the ipv4 runs out.

Cogeco will upgrade when they need to or enough people complain, but I doubt anyone really cares except for just experimenting. Using ipv6 on Teksavvy was slower and YouTube slowed down, sip was a nightmare, the list goes on and on using it on a consumer level was not good.

It's a lot of headache and in my opinion is not worth it until it's absolutely needed.
IpvNo

IpvNo

Anon

Also I should add if ipv6 is that important to you (no idea why you think this) go to Teksavvy. They have ipv6 but it's unsupported.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

34764170 (banned) to IpvNo

Member

to IpvNo
said by IpvNo :

Using ipv6 on Teksavvy was slower and YouTube slowed down, sip was a nightmare, the list goes on and on using it on a consumer level was not good.

It was slower because TSI had not gotten their shit together and their router was misconfigured.
Expand your moderator at work

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

3 recommendations

DigitalXeron to IpvNo

Member

to IpvNo

Re: [INTERNET] When will IPV6 be available on Cogeco? (2)

said by IpvNo :

Here's the thing, the reality of ipv6 is sinking in. Network admins everywhere realize it's just an annoyance and complicates things for no "real world" gain. Cogeco is like any other ISP, they will upgrade when they have to, because there is no real advantage and we will all be forced to use ipv6 when all the ipv4 runs out.

[snip]

It's a lot of headache and in my opinion is not worth it until it's absolutely needed.

As a "Network admin" I would like to refute this claim that it is us that is coming with these perspectives. It is in fact more-so the non-technical business-types in organizations that are being obstructionist to new technology since they are abstracted away from the practicalities of the new technologies and it is all hidden under statistics and bottom lines that are only short-term in nature, never truly long-term.

IPv6 isn't one of those things that can be implemented "when the market demands it", it must be implemented before because at this point in time, there are more devices connected to the Internet than the IPv4 address space supports and if we proceed with this "until it's absolutely needed" mindset, non-technical business types will see the RIRs run out of their reserve space and think "Oh, we can't get any more IP address space, let's pressure our technical departments to take the cheapest route possible to take on additional customers" and low and behold things like CGN (Carrier Grade NAT/NAT444) will be utilized. From a non-technical view, "until it's absolutely needed" is never as long as CGN and like IP sharing methods can be utilized.
said by IpvNo :

Cogeco will upgrade when they need to or enough people complain, but I doubt anyone really cares except for just experimenting. Using ipv6 on Teksavvy was slower and YouTube slowed down, sip was a nightmare, the list goes on and on using it on a consumer level was not good.

The reason why v6 is slow in contrast to v4 is because of limited deployment ergo limited routing possibilities through the Internet. This won't be resolved until IPv6 is more deployed.

Now...

The problem with everything regarding IPv6 at the moment is that there's a deadlock because there's no timeline or schedule or enforced mechanism for v6 deployment industry-wide, ergo non-technical management will see IPv6 as unnecessary indefinitely until something breaks hard and they are forced to deploy or something threatens their business models.

This deadlock is because a lot of people are busy saying "until it's absolutely necessary" but NEVER defining WHEN or WHAT "necessary" is meanwhile many engineers and other network/internet professionals, myself included say "it is necessary NOW."

Cogeco_Aaron
Premium Member
join:2011-07-11

1 recommendation

Cogeco_Aaron to btrower

Premium Member

to btrower
said by btrower:

It is so unbelievable that ipv6 is unsupported that I actually called Cogeco to confirm. They say they don't have it, but are 'working on it'.

I don't believe there's a major ISP that isn't working on it.
said by btrower:

They don't have any idea of when it will be in place.

You're absolutely correct. The representative you spoke to would have no knowledge of IPv6 implementation plans.
said by btrower:

Amazing. Is this a peering issue of some kind? Did they not get their block from IANA? Is it conceivable they have a significant amount of equipment that does not support ipv6? Are their IT/Network people actually unable to set it up somehow? I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason they can't turn this on in days or a few weeks, except maybe that (like in Windows) there are issues with implementations. If that is the case, then the world should be re-thinking the whole ipv6 thing.

Launching services like IPv6 require a whole different level of action than on small-scale networks. There are so many things we have to consider/plan for beyond simply turning a service on.
said by btrower:

How can any company offering network stuff not support ipv6 as a matter of course?

Because, as stated above, the average internet user isn't concerned with IPv6. They want their connection to work. Customers are still able to connect to the internet via IPv4.
said by btrower:

IPv4 is already dead. We are only using NAT and DHCP to keep it on life-support.

If companies like Cogeco are not implementing ipv6 right now, then something has gone horribly wrong.

We want to make sure that if we launch IPv6, we do it right, to ensure as minimal of a disruption as possible for our customers.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

1 edit

2 recommendations

DigitalXeron

Member

said by Cogeco_Aaron:

said by btrower:

It is so unbelievable that ipv6 is unsupported that I actually called Cogeco to confirm. They say they don't have it, but are 'working on it'.

I don't believe there's a major ISP that isn't working on it.

Though, "working on it" can easily mean doing it as slowly as possible or as quickly as possible, it doesn't provide any information on a timeline nor does it establish a deadline where the provider(s) commit to deployment.

This is a significant problem among major players in the ISP industry where unlike the Digital TV switchover where analog signals were cut off and everyone either sank or swam, this time there is no "cutoff date" where industry is forced to comply by or lose as a business. ISPs are using this to their advantage and not committing to anything thus providing them the ability to commit insignificant resources to deployment and make the vague "working on it" claim.

I understand as a Cogeco representative you rely on your management to provide you accurate information and only are able to release other obtained information your management authorizes. It's easy for "Working on it" to traverse management chains down to representatives, it's difficult for "We're expecting to deploy {$MONTH} {$YEAR}" to be in its place.
said by Cogeco_Aaron:

said by btrower:

They don't have any idea of when it will be in place.

You're absolutely correct. The representative you spoke to would have no knowledge of IPv6 implementation plans.

I believe that details of IPv6 implementation shouldn't endanger any proprietary or trade secret information considering IPv6 in itself is an open suite. It doesn't need to be known "This router here is being updated", "That CMTS there is being reconfigured", nothing on that device-by-device level, but this decision by Cogeco management to make no information whatsoever available is extremely concerning on just how much resources are being dedicated to v6 deployment. It's easy to assemble meeting after meeting move paper around without an iode of technical detail being drafted and claim at the end of the day "working on it"
said by Cogeco_Aaron:

said by btrower:

Amazing. Is this a peering issue of some kind? Did they not get their block from IANA? Is it conceivable they have a significant amount of equipment that does not support ipv6? Are their IT/Network people actually unable to set it up somehow? I honestly cannot think of any legitimate reason they can't turn this on in days or a few weeks, except maybe that (like in Windows) there are issues with implementations. If that is the case, then the world should be re-thinking the whole ipv6 thing.

Launching services like IPv6 require a whole different level of action than on small-scale networks. There are so many things we have to consider/plan for beyond simply turning a service on.
said by btrower:

How can any company offering network stuff not support ipv6 as a matter of course?

Because, as stated above, the average internet user isn't concerned with IPv6. They want their connection to work. Customers are still able to connect to the internet via IPv4.
said by btrower:

IPv4 is already dead. We are only using NAT and DHCP to keep it on life-support.

If companies like Cogeco are not implementing ipv6 right now, then something has gone horribly wrong.

We want to make sure that if we launch IPv6, we do it right, to ensure as minimal of a disruption as possible for our customers.

The difficulty here is that from this non-commital "Working on it" view, it makes it seem IPv6 is more of a pet project by Cogeco employees than an actual serious thing where management is actively committing resources to v6 deployment. If IPv4 was being cut off within the year, you'd bet v6 could be completed by then, but the fact it isn't means v6 progress can be stonewalled and buried under bureaucracy and customers receive the only information the reps likely are given on it: "Working on it".

I too understand the retraining staff will be a major thing to handle v6 issues, I understand that there are a lot of things that need planning and gradual, rolling implementation but perhaps Cogeco's problem is that it may be attempting to deploy it as an "All at once" thing where you're right, it is different and perhaps v6 needs deployment in a rollout over several weeks in multiple markets where the first couple are tests. Perhaps v4 can be a "guaranteed" and v6 can be a "You can try it out, but we're not formally supporting it for a while" thing and gradually shift v6 into stable. Dual stacking is indeed possible where both technologies are available.

There is an advantage to this being not like the Digital TV switchover: networks can roll both implementations at once over the same infrastructure and not force customers to use what they don't want/like but to offer both nonetheless.
robman50
join:2010-12-14

robman50 to Cogeco_Aaron

Member

to Cogeco_Aaron
Does this mean I am using IPv6?
Router's IPv6 Address On WAN: xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::x/xx, 6to4 Tunnel
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by robman50:

Does this mean I am using IPv6?
Router's IPv6 Address On WAN: xxxx:xxxx:xxxx::x/xx, 6to4 Tunnel

You are, but you are using a 6to4 tunnel. The discussion is specifically about Cogeco providing native v6 service or what is referred to as native dual-stack service since few people now would make any effort to run v6 only.
Zardok
join:2011-01-22

1 recommendation

Zardok to DigitalXeron

Member

to DigitalXeron
said by DigitalXeron:

I too understand the retraining staff will be a major thing to handle v6 issues, I understand that there are a lot of things that need planning and gradual, rolling implementation but perhaps Cogeco's problem is that it may be attempting to deploy it as an "All at once" thing where you're right, it is different and perhaps v6 needs deployment in a rollout over several weeks in multiple markets where the first couple are tests. Perhaps v4 can be a "guaranteed" and v6 can be a "You can try it out, but we're not formally supporting it for a while" thing and gradually shift v6 into stable. Dual stacking is indeed possible where both technologies are available.

There is an advantage to this being not like the Digital TV switchover: networks can roll both implementations at once over the same infrastructure and not force customers to use what they don't want/like but to offer both nonetheless.

A gradual implementation would be a great plan of action.
Offering IPv6 to those customers who specifically request it, as to not disturb those people who are still using IPv4.
I may be interested in helping Cogeco test their IPv6 deployment as a customer if they do go about this course in the near future.

There have been IPv6 days on the internet where websites switch over to IPv6 for the day to test the functionality of the technology on the internet.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

2 recommendations

Steve to btrower

to btrower
said by btrower:

If companies like Cogeco are not implementing ipv6 right now, then something has gone horribly wrong.

When people don't really understand something, they tend to think it's simple.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

2 recommendations

Gone

Premium Member

said by Steve:

When people don't really understand something, they tend to think it's simple.

Those same people also think they need it and are being deprived of it by not having it, too.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

1 edit

2 recommendations

DigitalXeron

Member

said by Steve:

said by btrower:

If companies like Cogeco are not implementing ipv6 right now, then something has gone horribly wrong.

When people don't really understand something, they tend to think it's simple.

Given that I work in the operations community I know v6 isn't about just flicking a switch, it's about upgrading routers to handle the increased routing table size, it's about ensuring devices can talk v6 in the first place so on and so forth.

However, providers that are still public hold-outs are not making this concern (that is very valid, many people do think it's just about flicking switches/sticking in an update like how their Windows install updates, etc) any better by being completely opaque and not even looking at releasing an official statement (from management - front-line reps have done as much as they can given that they haven't been adequately involved in knowing where the company is) on v6 and the company's official position on the technology or any commitments.
said by Gone:

said by Steve:

When people don't really understand something, they tend to think it's simple.

Those same people also think they need it and are being deprived of it by not having it, too.

This is a toxic view - and the view that non-technical management has taken on within many ISPs of "Why do any of our customers need IPv6? Those wanting it are just enthusiasts. There's no market for it. We don't need to commit serious resources with serious deadlines to the cause because there's no demonstration that our business will be compromised without it within the next year."

As I said in the original thread, IPv6 is not a matter of demand, it's a matter of necessity due to the fact the numbers of Internet-connected devices exceeds the IPv4 space. The general public doesn't know or care in general about the IP address space and will not in fact demand IPv6 technologies.

It's a shame that it has been relegated to a "novelty" simply because the sky isn't falling.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

said by DigitalXeron:

This is a toxic view

When an ISP is on the verge of CGNAT that would adversely affect you directly because they haven't bothered to do anything with IPv6, then we can talk. A company's internal migration strategy is none of your business or concern otherwise, nor does it mean that something isn't being worked on just because you don't see it yourself.

Until that day, I stand behind my comment that the only reason why anyone here would ever cry about IPv6 is for no reason other than wanting to show off a funky looking IP address to all their buddies on Efnet. For everyone else, the sky hasn't fallen on IPv4, nor will it for a while yet. When it does, I have no doubt in my mind that those who it matters to will already be ready.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

2 recommendations

DigitalXeron

Member

said by Gone:

said by DigitalXeron:

This is a toxic view

When an ISP is on the verge of CGNAT that would adversely affect you directly because they haven't bothered to do anything with IPv6, then we can talk. A company's internal migration strategy is none of your business or concern otherwise, nor does it mean that something isn't being worked on just because you don't see it yourself.

Though consider how vocal providers are when they are increasing speed or how vocal they were when they were rolling out DOCSIS3. The reps had knowledge of the plans, it was made public, even prior to the official "You are being upgraded" notices to customers. Then suddenly when it comes to IPv6 it's all quiet and hush-hush.
said by Gone:

Until that day, I stand behind my comment that the only reason why anyone here would ever cry about IPv6 is for no reason other than wanting to show off a funky looking IP address to all their buddies on Efnet. For everyone else, the sky hasn't fallen on IPv4, nor will it for a while yet. When it does, I have no doubt in my mind that those who it matters to will already be ready.

I see IPv6 as a valuable thing where a lot of providers are all waiting for "The Industry" to deploy so it's turning into a game of false-starts (World IPv6 day), deadlocks ("we won't deploy until other providers deploy") and excuses not to deploy or stonewalling any progress, including yes, saying it's only for "enthusiasts" (your example being funky IPs on Efnet) is part of the problem.

IPv6:
- Removes the whole need for port forwarding on routers to get certain applications to work
- Permit people to connect devices with fully routable IPs
- Doesn't have the issue with broken NAT implementations leaking internal addresses
- Permits ISPs to be able to more definitively inform users what computer on their network is infected with malware or performing other abuse if it is behind a router (with NAT only the NAT gateway's IP is available)
- Forces users not to rely on NAT as security (deploy proper firewalls on each individual machine/device)

IPv6 is a solution to many problems. Avoiding/Delaying it is like turning down a cure because treatment is more convenient. There needs to be a point when people stop regarding it as a toy and that point is now. It has been standardized, it has had live tests, it has emerged from being used only on university networks it has already been deployed by many providers in other countries (Comcast being a DOCSIS network example that has completed implementation and actively supports it), it's time we do the same in Canada - actively. Let's go.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

34764170 (banned) to Gone

Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

When an ISP is on the verge of CGNAT that would adversely affect you directly because they haven't bothered to do anything with IPv6, then we can talk. A company's internal migration strategy is none of your business or concern otherwise, nor does it mean that something isn't being worked on just because you don't see it yourself.

Until that day, I stand behind my comment that the only reason why anyone here would ever cry about IPv6 is for no reason other than wanting to show off a funky looking IP address to all their buddies on Efnet. For everyone else, the sky hasn't fallen on IPv4, nor will it for a while yet. When it does, I have no doubt in my mind that those who it matters to will already be ready.

Whether an ISP implements CGNAT is irrelevant as to whether they should be making progress towards rolling out v6. Whether CGNAT has been rolled out or not still does not allow users to connect to v6 resources if there is no v6 rolled out.

The comment just shows ignorance.

WarningU2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-27
Burlington, ON

WarningU2 to btrower

Premium Member

to btrower
Great discussion.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
said by 34764170:

Whether an ISP implements CGNAT is irrelevant as to whether they should be making progress towards rolling out v6. Whether CGNAT has been rolled out or not still does not allow users to connect to v6 resources if there is no v6 rolled out.

The comment just shows ignorance.

And just because they aren't giving you access to it now now now does not mean that they aren't ready to turn it on whenever they want. Any conclusions you draw about their progress are therefore completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

To which - not only do these comments about "lack" of IPv6 deployment show and even broader level of ignorance, but they also displays a certain level of self-absorbed narcissism, too. Sorry brad, but connecting to an IPv6 Efnet server so you can show off a cool hex IP address to all your friends as a "v6 resource" is simply not that important.

Keaters
Premium Member
join:2007-07-25
Windsor, ON

Keaters to btrower

Premium Member

to btrower
There is no point to use IPV6 addresses if the pool of available IPV4 address that are owned by Cogeco are high. The only time a company should switch over to IPV6 is when they are running out of IPV4 addresses and cannot buy any more IPV4 blocks. Then moving to IPV6 makes sense.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

4 recommendations

DigitalXeron

Member

said by Gone:

said by 34764170:

Whether an ISP implements CGNAT is irrelevant as to whether they should be making progress towards rolling out v6. Whether CGNAT has been rolled out or not still does not allow users to connect to v6 resources if there is no v6 rolled out.

The comment just shows ignorance.

And just because they aren't giving you access to it now now now does not mean that they aren't ready to turn it on whenever they want. Any conclusions you draw about their progress are therefore completely unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

To which - not only do these comments about "lack" of IPv6 deployment show and even broader level of ignorance, but they also displays a certain level of self-absorbed narcissism, too. Sorry brad, but connecting to an IPv6 Efnet server so you can show off a cool hex IP address to all your friends as a "v6 resource" is simply not that important.

This is the additude that hurts innovation. If providers are so ready to "turn it on", they should do so. Until they do, handwaving of "working on it" is moot without proof to the Internet community that there is something. If you are an Internet-connected network and service the public, you are accountable to the public your network services regardless of your status as a private company. If you don't want to be accountable on the Internet, disconnect, de-peer with all of your interconnects and form an Intranet where you can set the rules and be as quiet as you want.

The Internet was built on top of communication and being open about what you are doing with your corner of the network so that nearby networks and indeed the public can prepare operationally to ensure their equipment and computers are up to snuff to accept the new technology.

IPv6 was standardized as a protocol suite in 1998, providers have had 15 years to get themselves situated around to implement it. The silence of providers in Canadian markets is astounding. If providers in the US like Comcast can deploy v6 by now, Canadian providers have no excuse and the silence is just stonewalling the question of "Where are we now".

V6 is not a toy, it is most certainly not a novelty it is a reality. Google has implemented it, Facebook has implemented it, Comcast has implemented it, how many big players does it take implementing it make it not "a toy" in your view? v6 is a solution to a very real problem of IPv4 being clumsily implemented and has outlasted its lifespan considering the size of the network.
said by Keaters:

There is no point to use IPV6 addresses if the pool of available IPV4 address that are owned by Cogeco are high. The only time a company should switch over to IPV6 is when they are running out of IPV4 addresses and cannot buy any more IPV4 blocks. Then moving to IPV6 makes sense.

There is every point in the world, There's really not going to be a "D-Day" for v4, black markets have already formed for v4 resources to keep v6 at bay, markets where IP addresses aren't being returned to the RIRs by network operators and are instead being sold as if they are property (one of the principles of the Internet is that nobody "owns" an IP address/IP block but rather "holds" that resource until they're done with it and that that resource is actually everybody's just like the air you breathe, you return it to the pool if you're not using it.)

IPv4 will always have more and more methods to keep it on life support but the bullet of v6 must be bitten for the Internet to continue innovating and evolving. Implementing v6 when "the sky is falling" is fatal and will only result in panic when v4 resources are scarce and it is too expensive to operate any more v4. Consumers will be woefully unprepared (think of all of those people with old Linksys/Netgear/D-Link/etc routers that don't support v6), Small and Medium business (SMBs) will be woefully unprepared (many offices networks I work on do not have v6), meanwhile you have people treating it as a novelty that may be taken seriously in 15 more years. How many "15 years" do we need?

There are already big players taking it seriously.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

You *still* haven't said anything contrary to what I have been saying all along. Your opinion of the situation is ultimately irrelevant.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

2 edits

2 recommendations

DigitalXeron

Member

said by Gone:

You *still* haven't said anything contrary to what I have been saying all along. Your opinion of the situation is ultimately irrelevant.

In simple terms directly addressing your "you want access for Efnet" thing: I don't expect access in myself - I don't care about having a "different looking IP address", but: I expect everybody to receive equal access across the board because v6's benefits outweigh its costs, just business is too short-sighted to see that.

Vint Cerf, one of the grandfathers of the Internet wrote an RFC on this principle of the Internet being for everyone ( »www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3271.txt ) and among its principles is that it is up to the network operators (ISPs) to provide equal, and open access to the network and remove complicated barriers. A provider today (keeping in mind they have had over a decade to prepare and do business analysis on it) without v6 is effectively making a decision that their customers don't deserve the "Whole internet". The Internet evolves and it is up to ISPs to keep up regardless of their business plans.

I am advocating not for v6 for myself, but rather v6 for everyone.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

What are you unable to access on the Internet that someone with IPv6 is able to access?

kim
MVM,
join:2001-03-25
ON

kim to btrower

MVM,

to btrower
Gentlemen, just a friendly reminder to keep the personal jabs out of this valuable discussion.

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

2 recommendations

DigitalXeron to Gone

Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

What are you unable to access on the Internet that someone with IPv6 is able to access?

While a lot of the mainstream content providers with v6 do dual stacking (having both v4 and v6 side-by-side) there's niche resources like v6-only media sites and various personal websites that have opted to embrace the new technology and have gone v6-only. The only reason large content providers can't go v6-only is because they'd cut off their v4 users thus why it's significantly smaller sites with it. A quick google could list such sites. Imagine if you were on v4 and had a friend or colleague provide you a link that you couldn't visit because your provider has made a decision, or perhaps non-decision against (see previous statement, "working on" isn't enough anymore) v6.

When it comes to v6, you don't need to go v6-only, you can (And at the moment it is encouraged to) dual stack if you historically had a v4 address, so you wouldn't be losing v4 by going v6.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

1 recommendation

Gone

Premium Member

Do you have examples of these v6-only media sites you speak of that someone with only a v4 IP cannot access? What about these personal websites? Where are they hosted?

The Internet is not equal. Never has been and never will be. There are people barely scraping by with sub-1Mbit/s connections who can't get on Youtube while other people are operating on 1Gbit/s fibre and can browse the web at the same speed as if the content was hosted on a local SATA hard drive. It's a misnomer for one to claim that v6 is about equality, because nothing about Internet access is equal. Period.

I won't deny that having access to IPv6 is great for bragging rights with a cool IP and subnet to show off to one's friends, but it otherwise provides nothing more than the IPv4 addresses you already have now are capable of doing. That is the simple fact of the matter. One would do well to always remember this.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

said by Gone:

, but it otherwise provides nothing more than the IPv4 addresses you already have now are capable of doing.

Early adopters (the ones who care about it for reasons real or imagined) are the ones who help smoothe the path out for those who don't care. Pilot projects with anxious and (hopefully) technically savvy users give an ISP a fighting chance at getting over the speeds bumps of a tricky technology without having to unleash it on the great unwashed hordes such as you.

Steve

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

If you assume I don't already have a publicly-rotatable /64 assigned to my home network, you assume wrong.

The difference is that while it's cool to have and allows me to fart around with things, I accept the fact that I don't need it.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

1 recommendation

Steve

said by Gone:

If you assume I don't already have a publicly-rotatable /64 assigned to my home network, you assume wrong.

No, I just assume you're unwashed

I do mostly agree with you on this, but I separate those who make legitimate inquiries about trying to move technology forward versus whiners like the OP who complains about stuff s/he doesn't understand.