Wouldn't it make sense to then play a message for those users before they even connect to a representative to check the power to their equipment?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:41 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > Because we would get things like "why is my IP address super long, I can't > play Xbox now" or "my computer says it is IPv6 enabled, does that mean > someone hacked me?" > > I manage the entire thing and let me give you an example of a ticket from > this morning. The customer called in and said they unplugged some things > and moved stuff around the house. Since then their internet/phone > (landline) has not been working. CSR asked if device was plugged in to > power. It was not. Customer plugged it in. > > You have to realize the people we're dealing with on this topic. We get > the calls for anything internet related at all because people don't use > their brain to connect the situation of unplugging the internet company's > box from power and it not working. I wrote a script that takes all > incoming calls and scans the customer's device to see if it has dying gasp > and then posts to Slack. That post comes up for 20% of our calls - people > without power or unplugging it. > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:35 PM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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/JW5R7VO75I5RN4B4H2F4GF7NBMXRHH7E/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UUXBX5FXSEH6UURSXON5A4S4QKXQB5LL/
