> > I did. I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1 customer > support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing their > subnets. Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on the > router.
Not picking on you specifically here, but it's generally funny to hear "none of my users ask for V6" , then "my support will be run over with V6 setup questions". :) On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 3:09 PM Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > >Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the > implementation issues. > > I did. I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1 customer > support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing their > subnets. Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on the > router. > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:48 PM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's absolutely not true. Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6 >>> issues. Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6. Absolutely >>> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future). >> >> >> Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the >> implementation issues. >> >> I addressed (separately) the support aspects. Are there cases where v6 >> specifically causes customer issues? Yes. Are those cases exceedingly rare >> these days? Yes. While things happen, the vast majority of user facing >> stuff these days follows Happy Eyeballs pretty good, and Just Works when >> you have both 4 and 6 available. >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:28 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but once >>> those >>> are done, they're done. >>> >>> That's absolutely not true. Tier 1 support will have to deal with v6 >>> issues. Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6. Absolutely >>> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future). >>> >>> >What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, because >>> it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things are >>> IPv6 >>> these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9 but >>> who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either these >>> days? >>> >>> Little websites named after a forest and an auction website for old junk >>> (Amazon and Ebay). >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jared Mauch via NANOG < >>> [email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG < >>> [email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> >>> > >>> this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints >>> that get >>> > >> discussed ad nauseam for the last however many years. >>> > >> >>> > >> I'm not sure if you just don't see it or you're being funny. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > It's a correct statement. >>> > > >>> > > "IPv6 doesn't work" : Google's stats show that just shy of 50% of all >>> > their >>> > > traffic is native V6. Most of the largest CDNs will give you similar >>> > > answers. Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, >>> but >>> > > once those are done, they're done. >>> > > >>> > > "My customers don't ask for it." : Customers don't ask for IPv4. They >>> > don't >>> > > ask for NAT/CGNAT either. But you do those things I'm sure, because >>> as >>> > you >>> > > said, they just want things to work. >>> > > >>> > > The answer is really money. You made a business decision not to >>> incur the >>> > > hardware/software/support costs to implement V6 for your customers. >>> > That's >>> > > fine, no shame in that. Maybe that will never be a problem for you, >>> > maybe >>> > > someday it will and it will cost you. Who knows. >>> > > >>> > > But just be honest and call it what it is, instead of half baked >>> > statements >>> > > that have been repeated for decades. >>> > >>> > >>> > Exactly. >>> > >>> > Talking to friends at companies that do social networking stuff pretty >>> > much all their traffic (over 90%) is from mobile devices, and when I >>> look >>> > at the big 3 mobile networks in the US they all do IPv6. Their MVNO’s >>> > might vary, but the main networks do IPv6. >>> > >>> > I find myself having to tether off their networks when I’m on IPv4 only >>> > networks to access things like my hypervisors and other assets that are >>> > IPv6-only because they have superior networking these days. >>> > >>> > If you are doing IPv4-only, you are only harming yourself long-term. >>> The >>> > solutions are there for all the things you think you will encounter. >>> For >>> > the most part it’s 96 more bits, no magic. >>> > >>> > Yes there are a few nuances to be aware of, like proxy-arp saves a lot >>> of >>> > people when they do kinky things in IPv4 and proxy-NDP is there, but >>> not in >>> > the same way on many platforms. One of the last big hurdles out there >>> was >>> > IPv6 support for VTEP in FRR in my mind and that gap was recently >>> closed. >>> > >>> > I also happen to think that Apple got it wrong when they rolled private >>> > relay out, they kept the inbound tunnel protocol to outbound proxy >>> behavior >>> > on the same address family when they could have upgraded it on the >>> outbound >>> > side to IPv6 which would have closed the gap even more. >>> > >>> > What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, >>> because >>> > it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things are >>> IPv6 >>> > these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than 9.9.9.9 >>> but >>> > who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either these >>> > days? >>> > >>> > Do you need a ton of IPv4 space? Not really, but if you’re a cable >>> > company like RCN, yeah you’re not doing any upgrades, but if you are >>> > leaving assets on IPv4 just because you are leaving them on IPv4, then >>> at >>> > some point you are just wasting money. >>> > >>> > Send it to me and Tom so we can buy more hockey tickets. >>> > >>> > - Jared >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > NANOG mailing list >>> > >>> > >>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NMBYWMNZ7ROM6WMGFJ7IAYLKPFQG3BUO/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NANOG mailing list >>> >>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5M7ANDNUNQRIODBM5B6IGSH3P4XPSBYJ/ >> >> _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/MPRBEYIGIMAB7GPRQ6ZD5TNU5QBG4AQ7/
