On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 09:03:59AM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: >> On 1 May 2020, at 04:44, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd not assume that IPv6 is not getting deployed (only) because it's >> hard or because of >> the technical difficulties. >> Maybe you are more lucky but I personally have a lot of things on my >> 'would be nice to get done' list - and none >> of them are hard to do. It's just they keep getting postponed because >> if other things which are either more urgent or more important. >> I'd not be surprised if IPv6 deployments suffer from the same issue quite >> often.
> I think this is spot on; IPv6 never makes it to the top of the list for most > organisations. > The difference is when something critical comes along that changes that. I think that "something critical" has just come along with drastically changed usage patterns for private internet access as many people now are working from home. Interactive work probably puts a lot more stress on CGN gateways than streaming videos, even if the amount of traffic is much lower. If someone who runs CGN gateways could do a presentation on that then I would like to see it. Maybe we could also discuss recommendations for a way forward. Some things that come to mind: - access providers that already operate dual stack networks but by default only provide IPv4 to customers could move their default to dual stack - access providers that already operate dual stack networks but only for private users (usually with DSLite or similar) and hand IPv4 only to their business customers could offer dual stack for the latter - website operators who are on dual stack systems should make sure that they publish AAAA records in DNS. I see this on our network: while almost all newer websites are on IPv6-only VMs (we charge extra for IPv4), many of the customers on the older dual stack systems don't bother to publish AAAA records. - networks that still offer legacy-IP only should consider to join the Internet :-) Greetings, Wolfgang
