Just to dive in on this debate. We have gone really hard at our customer V6 rollout because we believe it's the right thing to do and at our scale it's much more feasible.
However I can tell you from experience that once you run with v6 live with real customers for a while there are many small issues that come to the surface, things we have found include: 1) The 'commodity' CPEs (in our case Zyxel and Netgear), have slightly flakey v6 implementations that are far from auto configuring and break occasionally in random and unpredictable ways. The Netgears are particularly horrible as they don't dual stack and require two PPPOE sessions. All of them have really basic v6 with all or nothing firewalls, etc. It's all pretty immature and lacks the polish of a battle tested solution. I am sure someone will suggest a 'good' commodity v6 CPE, but as we have our VDSL2 network things like chipset compatibility have to outrank v6. 2) Random sites and services not working on v6. Recently a customer called to complain MS Skydrive wasn't working for them, the answer was to turn off v6 on that customers CPE, and it's just not worth the time to investigate why and fix for v6. 3) Even on our side of the fence we encounter problems with what should be a robust solution by now, for example we use 7200s for our BNGs and implement basic traffic policing on PPPOE sessions, works fine on v4 traffic it works fine on v6 it either works in one direction or not at all. All of the above are trivial issues and with a bit of spit and polish by the vendors could be sorted pretty quickly, but they won't sort these issues until take up is at such a level it's a problem. We need that 'killer app' to truly drive demand from end customers and then it will all come together I am sure. Regards... Ben Sent from my iPhone > On 5 Sep 2014, at 16:33, "Neil J. McRae" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 05/09/2014 08:49, "Andy Davidson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That¹s both correct and nothing to do with what I said, I was talking >> about the relative frustrations of having a broken connectivity with only >> NAT, or a broken connection with some end-to-end actual Internet on it. > > Neither is acceptable in a broadband servce, as an operator unfortunately > its much easier for me to do NAT and make it work than it is for me to fix > all the broken IPV6 that¹s out there. > >> >> Agree with what you say about the inevitability of this broken future; >> giving users native v6 and NAT44 gives content companies an opportunity >> to sidestep the brokenness by simply adopting V6. Delaying v6 to the >> home doesn¹t give them an incentive to move. Doing this early and >> getting content onto v6 early reduces your spend on CGN tin because >> there¹s less content that you can only reach on the v4 only internet. > > See above. > > Regards, > Neil. > >
