dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to spock

Re: Status of ipv6 with Canadian ISP

IPv6 remains completely useless and unnecessary at this point. Despite paul248 claiming that lack of IPv6 support somehow "restricts [you] from accessing the entire internet", that's garbage. Show me one instance of a service that can't be accessed by IPv4 that isn't a case of somebody with an agenda purposefully limiting a feature or service to IPv6 to help convince the public of its utility? And I define that as "if the organization has IPv4 addresses, their IPv6-only services are part of their IPv6 agenda and not legitimately restricted".
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by Guspaz:

IPv6 remains completely useless and unnecessary at this point.

No longer having to mess with port forwarding and related work-arounds because every LAN device can have its own public IP address is useless to you? Imagine having multiple native IP-phones connecting to your VoIP provider... annoying to setup with IPv4 because you have to make sure each phone has a unique inbound port but with IPv6, it would simply work. Just need VoIP providers and devices to support IPv6 instead of a plethora of port forwarding management tricks.

While IPv6 may not yet be a MUST-have feature, it certainly is a NICE-to-have feature.

paul248

join:2001-09-04

1 recommendation

reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

Show me one instance of a service that can't be accessed by IPv4 that isn't a case of somebody with an agenda purposefully limiting a feature or service to IPv6 to help convince the public of its utility?

There are plenty of dual-stack services (e.g. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Bing, Wikipedia) which will utilize IPv6 if you have it. When ISPs are forced to deploy large-scale NAT, then this will give you a way to route around state boxes that would otherwise be beyond your control.

Also, large-scale NAT will make it very difficult to connect to your machines from elsewhere, unless you also have IPv6. It's not mainly about getting new features, it's about preserving what we have for the future.

If you have IPv6 service in two places, then it's usable now, regardless of what the rest of the world is doing: you can give each of your machines a unique hostname, and SSH to them without mucking around with port forwarding. It's really quite nice.


random

@teksavvy.com

>When ISPs are forced to deploy large-scale NAT, then this will give you a way to route around state boxes that would otherwise be beyond your control.

The ISPs that go to the trouble of using CGNAT are unlikely to offer IPv6. "Side effects" of torrents and VoIP not working with CGNAT certainly would benefit our last mile gate keepers.

People would have to figure out IPv6 tunnel services on their own.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by random :

The ISPs that go to the trouble of using CGNAT are unlikely to offer IPv6. "Side effects" of torrents and VoIP not working with CGNAT certainly would benefit our last mile gate keepers.

Incorrect. The assumption is that CGN and IPv6 are mutually exclusive and they're not.


random

@teksavvy.com

>The assumption is that CGN and IPv6 are mutually exclusive and they're not.

They are not mutually exclusive from a technical point of view, but are on a for-profit/expenses point of view. In an ideal (dream) world, multiple solutions would be offered.

Why would large telecom corporations that control 90+% of the market who are keep on maximizing their profit and skim on expanding their networks spend extra money to serve the 5% for the more technical users? It is diminishing returns for their quarterly earnings.

That's something the smaller guys might offer. They aren't likely to use CGNAT in the first place.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by random :

They are not mutually exclusive from a technical point of view, but are on a for-profit/expenses point of view. In an ideal (dream) world, multiple solutions would be offered.

Well ya, that's why you'll see v6 rolled out for most providers before CGN. But CGN will come eventually too even for the largest of carriers.

said by random :

Why would large telecom corporations that control 90+% of the market who are keep on maximizing their profit and skim on expanding their networks spend extra money to serve the 5% for the more technical users? It is diminishing returns for their quarterly earnings.

That's something the smaller guys might offer. They aren't likely to use CGNAT in the first place.

Even the largest of carriers with a lot of v4 resources are looking at CGN. Why "waste" v4 address space on consumer connections when it isn't necessary? (I don't agree with this but a lot of clueless seem to think so too). Take away the v4 address space for the residential connections and use it for business customers or even pay for a v4 address. Would you really be surprised by that?


random

@teksavvy.com

>Why "waste" v4 address space on consumer connections when it isn't necessary?

Especially in the ever changing contracts for the large telecom corporations, the residential customers are forbidden to have "servers". They hate torrents and VoIp cutting into their content and phone business. No servers means no need to have an routable external IP. This is one way of them (en)forcing that.

Chances are that IPv6 would be offered to their business customers while the residential would be in a walled garden with CGN. They might bump the small residential users to their higher tiers service just for the luxury of being able to be reach from the outside world.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by random :

Chances are that IPv6 would be offered to their business customers while the residential would be in a walled garden with CGN. They might bump the small residential users to their higher tiers service just for the luxury of being able to be reach from the outside world.

That will be the exception not the norm. But that's a good way of pissing off a lot of your customers and having them move elsewhere.


aefstoggaflm
Open Source Fan
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:7
Reviews:
·PenTeleData
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

IPv6 remains completely useless and unnecessary at this point. Despite paul248 See Profile claiming that lack of IPv6 support somehow "restricts [you] from accessing the entire internet", that's garbage. Show me one instance of a service that can't be accessed by IPv4 that isn't a case of somebody with an agenda purposefully limiting a feature or service to IPv6 to help convince the public of its utility? And I define that as "if the organization has IPv4 addresses, their IPv6-only services are part of their IPv6 agenda and not legitimately restricted".

#1 I heard/read from »www22.verizon.com/Support/Reside···8742.htm

that
quote:
Today (2012) the industry has very few sites that are IPv6-only and would require you to change your equipment (less than 1%).

#2 I looked around to verify / backup that claim and the only thing that I found so far was

»networking.vutbr.cz/live-statistics/
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.