Don’t pay more than $20 / IP Mehmet On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 14:23 Mike Hammett via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not. - Tom On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

Aaron, As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN? Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free? Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4. On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM...

The monopoly probably exists because it's so expensive to be there. There are a ton of factors. If it was so easy, why don't you start up your own ISP (with blackjack and hookers)? Dovid - you didn't even answer the first question, why do you need a /29? What problem are you trying to solve with a publicly routable block? On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:13 AM Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:

Not answering for Aaron but I almost have the same issue. Where I am there is a monopoly. My *ONLY* option is a single ISP with coax. I got a /29 from them as I needed a few static IP's. I would love if they allowed BGP and would love it even more if we went back in time 10 years and had access to fiber.....

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:08 AM Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

...

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XWAJ5B7Z...

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place.

There are plenty of reasons. One of my clients (as an example) has a particularly obnoxious phone provider they work with that absolutely refuses to have their mini asterisk phone server box behind a router. In my case I had my trusty old (~12 years) FreeBSD router die and was down for a few hours while it was replaced. Given a /29, I can set up two and make them redundant. Plus I have an internal kubernetes cluster and am sick of having to manually set up port forwards on my router to map to the private "external IP" of the cluster.

Are you willing to pay more to support v6?

That's an odd question. As an ISP, are you willing to lose customers (assuming you're not a monopoly) by not improving your services? Both Qwest/CenturyLink/whatever they're called today and TDS are in the neighboring town, and they're still plugging along with 5 down / 1 up DSL for $80/mo. They've lost a lot of customers over the last few years to StarLink even though it costs a bit more. No one's asking those customers to justify why they *need* higher bandwidth.

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single national provider that doesn't have dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc...they've all had it for years. -A On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 7:07 AM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM...

Dynamic DNS solves none of those problems. -A

Works for me. Would you like help setting it up? On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:29 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:

Dynamic DNS solves none of those problems.

-A

the reason "you still need v4 for a working Internet" is because people like you keep saying crap like "v6 is a joke". thanks for that! On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XWAJ5B7Z...

I need a business reason to make the business do IPv6. I do not need a technical reason. This thread has shown there is no business use case for global IPv6. I also want to throw this out there: Metronet residential (last I heard 7th largest fiber provider in the US, this was well before the Tmobile acquisition) doesn't even give out public IPs. They do IPv4 only CGNAT. You can get a /32 static at $15/mo (in some areas). On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:51 AM Mu <mu@zuqq.me> wrote:

the reason "you still need v4 for a working Internet" is because people like you keep saying crap like "v6 is a joke". thanks for that!

On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XWAJ5B7Z...

You're not even reading my replies correctly at this point :(

My home IP is white listed in a lot fo equipment. I also connect to customers networks and that requires it's own IP (I can't connect from the same IP that I use for my day to day work).

Dovid - use dynamic DNS. It's generally free and there are lot of free options. That solves the problem without using a /29. I do exactly this myself at home.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:57 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:

Sure. Tell me how dynamic DNS is going to solve "Customer X is running a phone server, an internal customer management portal that staff need to be able to pull up from home, and Microsoft's RD Web and they all need to be accessible by a friendly DNS name like voice.example.tld, portal.example.tld, and remote.example.tld and you have a single static IP issued by your ISP, and no, their Netgear router doesn't support running HAProxy to divert traffic based on SNI and they are unwilling to purchase another machine to do so".

Then tell me why I should use your ISP and solution instead of them simply paying Comcast $25/mo to get what they want.

-A

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 7:35 AM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

...

Works for me. Would you like help setting it up?

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:29 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:

...

Dynamic DNS solves none of those problems.

-A

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. On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 11:01 AM Mu <mu@zuqq.me> wrote:

it has not "shown" anything, and especially not globally. this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints that get discussed ad nauseam for the last however many years.

On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:56 AM, Josh Luthman < josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

I need a business reason to make the business do IPv6. I do not need a technical reason. This thread has shown there is no business use case for global IPv6.

I also want to throw this out there: Metronet residential (last I heard 7th largest fiber provider in the US, this was well before the Tmobile acquisition) doesn't even give out public IPs. They do IPv4 only CGNAT. You can get a /32 static at $15/mo (in some areas).

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:51 AM Mu <mu@zuqq.me> wrote:

...

the reason "you still need v4 for a working Internet" is because people like you keep saying crap like "v6 is a joke". thanks for that!

On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3...

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XWAJ5B7Z...

???? Going V6 only is more than possible, and I've accidentally done it a few times. (broke IPv4 connectivity while v6 still worked) We're extremely close to a scenario where the average home user doesn't need v4 at all. We're practically already there for most things, in fact. I wouldn't ask my customer why they needed a /29 either, I'd just ensure they pay my set fee - as a network operator it's not my place to question the user's setup. I also don't BGP peering to downstream customers on residential circuits. So that entire first statement just doesn't fly at all. I personally have paid more to have v6 support, so yes to that question. But it should be a base connectivity function, not an extra thing (my paying extra was for a leased circuit bypassing their resi infrastructure) But to circle back - you absolutely can get by now without v4, as my self-inflicted accidents have proven to me. -----Original Message----- From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:08 AM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing Aaron, As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN? Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free? Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4. On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UW JDG6X3FH73ELJRSEX4O4BIK7CS7EAQ/

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2D P5TTAHK4CN2HXHNLLYN225JNLQYJIO/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D 2RDOWMRXX4634VKZO33X4YAR7RYMDK/

NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XWAJ5B7Z...

I'll add this too - We don't even bother asking ISPs for v6 support, we just assume if it's not there it won't happen. There is no point in asking. It's 2025, either they're deploying it or not. If they don't have it, we work around it, usually by allocating space to a customer and setting up a portal/tunnel endpoint geographically close to them and handling it that way. We also encourage customers to move off said ISP - I have moved several of my customers to T-Mobile wireless internet off of local ISPs because of this issue, and it works 'good enough'. Not having v6 support these days speaks to laughable incompetence as a network operator, or extensive legacy infrastructure. Especially since it's now possible to run v6 only without any v4 translation tech and still have working end-user 'internet' -----Original Message----- From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:56 AM To: Mu <mu@zuqq.me> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org>; Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing I need a business reason to make the business do IPv6. I do not need a technical reason. This thread has shown there is no business use case for global IPv6. I also want to throw this out there: Metronet residential (last I heard 7th largest fiber provider in the US, this was well before the Tmobile acquisition) doesn't even give out public IPs. They do IPv4 only CGNAT. You can get a /32 static at $15/mo (in some areas). On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:51 AM Mu <mu@zuqq.me> wrote:

the reason "you still need v4 for a working Internet" is because people like you keep saying crap like "v6 is a joke". thanks for that!

On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UW JDG6X3FH73ELJRSEX4O4BIK7CS7EAQ/

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2D P5TTAHK4CN2HXHNLLYN225JNLQYJIO/

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D 2RDOWMRXX4634VKZO33X4YAR7RYMDK/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XW AJ5B7ZIBEPUGWIUKS42N3AM76AMWRV/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3HDQ4IOL...

So you're suggesting you have to use an IP address that is v4 for stuff that can't support a name? I'm sure there's a way to automate that. A simple sed would solve that problem. Or use equipment that supports DNS. What are you going to do with IPv6? Just not use DNS anywhere for those devices? On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 12:54 PM Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:

It does not for me where remote services I am using require an IP NOT a FQDN. Junos, Fortinet, AWS etc.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:28 AM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

...

Dovid - use dynamic DNS. It's generally free and there are lot of free options. That solves the problem without using a /29. I do exactly this myself at home.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:24 AM Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:15 AM Josh Luthman < josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

...

The monopoly probably exists because it's so expensive to be there. There are a ton of factors. If it was so easy, why don't you start up your own ISP (with blackjack and hookers)?

The main ISP's are Optimum and Verizon. Verizon has DSL and never built out to my area. Optimum has fiber down the block but can't be bothered to bring it to mine (why spend the money of there is no one forcing them). If starlink or anyone else had satic IP's I would jump ship.

...

Dovid - you didn't even answer the first question, why do you need a /29? What problem are you trying to solve with a publicly routable block?

My home IP is white listed in a lot fo equipment. I also connect to customers networks and that requires it's own IP (I can't connect from the same IP that I use for my day to day work).

...

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:13 AM Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:

...

Not answering for Aaron but I almost have the same issue. Where I am there is a monopoly. My *ONLY* option is a single ISP with coax. I got a /29 from them as I needed a few static IP's. I would love if they allowed BGP and would love it even more if we went back in time 10 years and had access to fiber.....

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:08 AM Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

> I wish they were dropping in my area. > I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber > customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said > "It's $300/mo". > I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring > them, so he set the price really high". > Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got > back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next > year". > > -A > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < > nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: > > > v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last > > year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the > > mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. > Why > > not. > > > > - Tom > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < > > nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: > > > > > What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of > > > undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date. > > > > > > Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: > > > https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ > > > but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to > $22: > > > https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales > > > > > > > > > These guys stopped updating in June: > > > https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > Mike Hammett > > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > Midwest-IX > > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UWJDG6X3... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NANOG mailing list > > > > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2DP5TTAH... > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D2RDOWM... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XWAJ5B7Z...

On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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

Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but once those are done, they're done.

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

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). 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 <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ...

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 <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

...

On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <

...

wrote:

...

...

...

this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints that

...

...

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

get 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

nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5M7ANDNU...

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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

...

On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <

...

wrote:

...

...

...

this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints that

...

...

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

get 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

nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5M7ANDNU...

I think that's pretty subjective. Everything I read says ipv6 is faster. This comes from someone not doing any v6 in practice and only reads articles and reports. On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 4:44 PM Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

On 12/1/25 14:22, Jared Mauch via NANOG wrote:

...

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.

While I'll agree v6 is easy and should be deployed I have to take issue with the current as-built being superior.

At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s.

This is ipv6 behavior I've seen time and time again. I'm unsure where problems like these lie in the network, other than it's not mine or my peers. I've seen the same issues with v6 paths to the same server bounce around the west coast and back, whilst IPv4 is 6 hops and 12 ms away.

This is exactly the sort of thing that holds IPv6 back by giving it a bad name. -- Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/APA2YIX4...

If you aren’t buying stuff off ebay and amazon (or using github, but they’re actively working on fixing that) v6-only is quite feasible today.

Your customers are paying for internet access. This implies the *entire* internet. If your customers can’t get to Amazon, eBay, Github, or a myriad of other sites ( a *lot* of B2B sites are v4-only, including Salesforce), you’re not going to have many customers. As long as there are destinations on the internet that aren’t available over IPv6, there will be a need for IPv4 connectivity. While I expect IPv6 adoption to continue to rise, I don’t think we’ll ever see an IPv6-only internet. ISPs may stop allocating v4 to eyeball customers - many (most US?) mobile carriers are doing this already - but that long tail… we may never get to the Thagomizer. -C

From: Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 2:03 PM To: Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org>; Mu <mu@zuqq.me>; Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing

V4 only works today? You're going to exclude at the very least Ebay and Amazon? Seriously?

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 1:13 PM Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com<mailto:gary@kisaracorporation.com>> wrote: I'll add this too -

We don't even bother asking ISPs for v6 support, we just assume if it's not there it won't happen.

There is no point in asking. It's 2025, either they're deploying it or not.

If they don't have it, we work around it, usually by allocating space to a customer and setting up a portal/tunnel endpoint geographically close to them and handling it that way.

We also encourage customers to move off said ISP - I have moved several of my customers to T-Mobile wireless internet off of local ISPs because of this issue, and it works 'good enough'.

Not having v6 support these days speaks to laughable incompetence as a network operator, or extensive legacy infrastructure. Especially since it's now possible to run v6 only without any v4 translation tech and still have working end-user 'internet'

-----Original Message----- From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:56 AM To: Mu <mu@zuqq.me<mailto:mu@zuqq.me>> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>>; Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com<mailto:aaron@heyaaron.com>>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing

I need a business reason to make the business do IPv6. I do not need a technical reason. This thread has shown there is no business use case for global IPv6.

I also want to throw this out there: Metronet residential (last I heard 7th largest fiber provider in the US, this was well before the Tmobile acquisition) doesn't even give out public IPs. They do IPv4 only CGNAT. You can get a /32 static at $15/mo (in some areas).

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:51 AM Mu <mu@zuqq.me<mailto:mu@zuqq.me>> wrote:

...

the reason "you still need v4 for a working Internet" is because people like you keep saying crap like "v6 is a joke". thanks for that!

On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UW JDG6X3FH73ELJRSEX4O4BIK7CS7EAQ/

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2D P5TTAHK4CN2HXHNLLYN225JNLQYJIO/

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5D 2RDOWMRXX4634VKZO33X4YAR7RYMDK/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/XW AJ5B7ZIBEPUGWIUKS42N3AM76AMWRV/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3HDQ4IOL... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3OLDSHVP...

That's what the minimal CGNAT deployment / etc that I described resolves. Going full v6-first reduces total hardware required and hardware-related expenses, as well as address-related expenses too...... Given traffic load, a minimal-but-there v4 footprint is all that's really needed these days for US IPv4 eyeball networks. Soon, that minimal v4 won't even be needed, but it obviously is today. But each day we get closer. I could easily squash all my customer base to a single /24 because of v6 load statistics without batting an eye, and several could even go without translation tech at all. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Woodfield via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 5:35 PM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Chris Woodfield <chris@woodfield.tech> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing

If you aren’t buying stuff off ebay and amazon (or using github, but they’re actively working on fixing that) v6-only is quite feasible today.

Your customers are paying for internet access. This implies the *entire* internet. If your customers can’t get to Amazon, eBay, Github, or a myriad of other sites ( a *lot* of B2B sites are v4-only, including Salesforce), you’re not going to have many customers. As long as there are destinations on the internet that aren’t available over IPv6, there will be a need for IPv4 connectivity. While I expect IPv6 adoption to continue to rise, I don’t think we’ll ever see an IPv6-only internet. ISPs may stop allocating v4 to eyeball customers - many (most US?) mobile carriers are doing this already - but that long tail… we may never get to the Thagomizer. -C

From: Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 2:03 PM To: Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org>; Mu <mu@zuqq.me>; Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing

V4 only works today? You're going to exclude at the very least Ebay and Amazon? Seriously?

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 1:13 PM Gary Sparkes <gary@kisaracorporation.com<mailto:gary@kisaracorporation.com>> wrote: I'll add this too -

We don't even bother asking ISPs for v6 support, we just assume if it's not there it won't happen.

There is no point in asking. It's 2025, either they're deploying it or not.

If they don't have it, we work around it, usually by allocating space to a customer and setting up a portal/tunnel endpoint geographically close to them and handling it that way.

We also encourage customers to move off said ISP - I have moved several of my customers to T-Mobile wireless internet off of local ISPs because of this issue, and it works 'good enough'.

Not having v6 support these days speaks to laughable incompetence as a network operator, or extensive legacy infrastructure. Especially since it's now possible to run v6 only without any v4 translation tech and still have working end-user 'internet'

-----Original Message----- From: Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:56 AM To: Mu <mu@zuqq.me<mailto:mu@zuqq.me>> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>>; Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com<mailto:aaron@heyaaron.com>>; Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>> Subject: Re: IPv4 Pricing

I need a business reason to make the business do IPv6. I do not need a technical reason. This thread has shown there is no business use case for global IPv6.

I also want to throw this out there: Metronet residential (last I heard 7th largest fiber provider in the US, this was well before the Tmobile acquisition) doesn't even give out public IPs. They do IPv4 only CGNAT. You can get a /32 static at $15/mo (in some areas).

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 10:51 AM Mu <mu@zuqq.me<mailto:mu@zuqq.me>> wrote:

...

the reason "you still need v4 for a working Internet" is because people like you keep saying crap like "v6 is a joke". thanks for that!

On Monday, December 1st, 2025 at 10:08 AM, Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

Aaron,

As a small operator I would ask why you need a /29 the first place. Second why don't you just get your own ASN?

Are you willing to pay more to support v6? Or do you think the ISP should add that service for free?

Imo v6 is a joke because you still need v4 for a working Internet. I understand there are benefits but this is 2025 and you can't get by without v4.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 10:03 AM Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

I wish they were dropping in my area. I called my backwoods ISP last week (they are a monopoly with ~4,000 fiber customers) to go from a single static at my office to a /29 and they said "It's $300/mo". I asked why it was so high and they said "My boss doesn't like configuring them, so he set the price really high". Then I asked when IPv6 would be available and got the same answer I got back in 2019: "My boss said he was thinking about looking into it next year".

-A

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Tom Mitchell via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

v4 addresses have been dropping rapidly. They were as high as $65 last year. Now, there are offers for $11. Average market price now is in the mid-$20's. All the NA ISPs have been selling much of their inventory. Why not.

- Tom

On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Mike Hammett via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote:

...

What are you using for guides for IPv4 pricing? There are a bunch of undated blogs, which don't mean much if there's no date.

Hilco's blog says somewhere around $27 for a /22 to /24: https://www.ipv4.global/reports/october-2025/ but then fast forward a month on their auction page and it's down to $22: https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

These guys stopped updating in June: https://ipv4market.eu/ipv4-market-average-sale-prices-2025/

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/U W JDG6X3FH73ELJRSEX4O4BIK7CS7EAQ/

...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/2 D P5TTAHK4CN2HXHNLLYN225JNLQYJIO/

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5 D 2RDOWMRXX4634VKZO33X4YAR7RYMDK/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/X W AJ5B7ZIBEPUGWIUKS42N3AM76AMWRV/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3H DQ4IOL7WVYZUUSRW2SXPKGP5JXZJHS/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/3O LDSHVPHWL2QRLURB4X5DNB3NUQUQTD/

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/GYKRBKGU...

Even better, there are providers (major national ones, even!) that only provide IPv6 to DHCP customers, if you pay extra for static IPv4, there *is* no IPv6. Then again, that same provider only has IPv6 on ~5% of their network: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS5650?c=US&p=1&v=1&w=30&x=1 On Dec 1, 2025, at 4:47 PM, Chris Woodfield via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: I’ll chime in my personal beef with IPv6, or at least, my home ISP’s implementation… Unless I want to pay $$$ for a “business-class” service for my home, my IP allocations, both IPv4 and V6, are not statically assigned. While they don’t change often, they have in the past. Now, if I want to assign static addresses for devices within my home network, I don’t have a problem with v4 - everything’s RFC1918, so if the public IP changes, NBD, and I can even do it with DHCP client IDs. However, if my IPv6 PD changes and my home devices all have GUAs assigned via SLAAC, then… guess what - every IPv6 device address in my network just changed. Oops. Practically, I’ve worked around this by manually assigning LUAs to the devices that need static v6 addresses, like my SAN and the machines that do NFS mounts from it. But 1. that’s more than annoyingly clunky - hardly the improved experience that IPv6 promised - and 2. weren’t we trying to get away from LUAs in the first place? -Chris On Dec 1, 2025, at 13:44, Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote: On 12/1/25 14:22, Jared Mauch via NANOG wrote: 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. While I'll agree v6 is easy and should be deployed I have to take issue with the current as-built being superior. At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s. This is ipv6 behavior I've seen time and time again. I'm unsure where problems like these lie in the network, other than it's not mine or my peers. I've seen the same issues with v6 paths to the same server bounce around the west coast and back, whilst IPv4 is 6 hops and 12 ms away. This is exactly the sort of thing that holds IPv6 back by giving it a bad name. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/APA2YIX4... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/AWW6EP3W...

On 02.12.2025 03:28 Tim Burke via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

Then again, that same provider only has IPv6 on ~5% of their network: https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS5650?c=US&p=1&v=1&w=30&x=1

That ISP seems to have started rolling out IPv6 - the progress is rather fast if you check the sample count - so I assume they are rolling it out for residential users. -- kind regards Marco Send spam to abfall1764642520@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

On Tue, 2 Dec 2025, Marco Moock via NANOG wrote:

...

Now, if I want to assign static addresses for devices within my home network, I don’t have a problem with v4 - everything’s RFC1918, so if the public IP changes, NBD, and I can even do it with DHCP client IDs. However, if my IPv6 PD changes and my home devices all have GUAs assigned via SLAAC, then… guess what - every IPv6 device address in my network just changed. Oops.

Practically, I’ve worked around this by manually assigning LUAs to the devices that need static v6 addresses, like my SAN and the machines that do NFS mounts from it. But 1. that’s more than annoyingly clunky - hardly the improved experience that IPv6 promised - and 2. weren’t we trying to get away from LUAs in the first place?

That is something your ISP is intentionally doing - unrelated to the IPv6 specification. There is no technical reason not to give a static net to a customer, it doesn't cost more (although some ISP charge for that).

It's more work for the ISP (to make the static assignments, delete them from DHCPv6 config when a customer terminates service, etc.). It's much simpler to just define DHCP pools (and PD pools) and let the DHCP server hand out IPs and subnets and keep track of the leases. I'm curious though, do any broadband providers [of size] doing v6 assign a static PD subnet to each customer? It's one thing to keep track of a handful of statics. It's another to keep track of tens or hundreds of thousands of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Blue Stream Fiber, Sr. Neteng | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

Am 02.12.2025 um 17:05:42 Uhr schrieb Geoff Huston:

that sample count is just the number of meaurement sample points - the 5% deployment that has happened since mid-September refers to 5% of an estimated total of about 4M end users, or 200K users so far (https://stats.labs.apnic.net/aspop?cc=&aa=5650&dd=28%2F11%2F2025&ww=1&rr=1&ff=1&xx=p)

That's why I assume those are almost all home users - it is rather unlikely that business users enable IPv6 in their infrastructure with such a steady grow that fast. -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1764691542muell@cartoonies.org

At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s.

Lots of reasons that could explain that which have nothing to do with traffic being v4 vs v6. On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 4:44 PM Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

On 12/1/25 14:22, Jared Mauch via NANOG wrote:

...

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.

While I'll agree v6 is easy and should be deployed I have to take issue with the current as-built being superior.

At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s.

This is ipv6 behavior I've seen time and time again. I'm unsure where problems like these lie in the network, other than it's not mine or my peers. I've seen the same issues with v6 paths to the same server bounce around the west coast and back, whilst IPv4 is 6 hops and 12 ms away.

This is exactly the sort of thing that holds IPv6 back by giving it a bad name. -- Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/APA2YIX4...

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 <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> 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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

...

On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG <

...

wrote:

...

...

> this thread has done nothing except rehash the same viewpoints

nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5M7ANDNU...

Also Geoff has measured this : https://nanog.org/events/nanog-66/content/1078/ https://archive.nanog.org/sites/default/files/Huston_Is_Ipv6.pdf 10 years old now, but his conclusions then were if you could establish a connection, V4 and V6 latency was basically the same. ( Unless 6 to 4 was involved. ) On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 12:29 PM Lee Howard via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

Before you call people silly, you might want to collect some data.

You would think IPv6 headers would add processing time, but that turns out not to be the case. Yes, they may sometimes be routed along different paths, but I have seen IPv6 have fewer hops and lower latency as often as I've seen IPv4 be faster. When I was at a large network, I published these results, measuring from many points in the network to many common destinations, and there was no predictable difference.

This is true for CGN, firewall, load balancer, router, translator, or any other hardware. The *only* exception is some limited release devices that kicked IPv6 forwarding to the software plane; I would argue that that is not IPv6 support. If anyone else has contrary experience or data, please share. To be fair, such devices also do not add measurable latency in performing NAT44.

Many networks have reported that IPv6 has lower latency, in fact.[1] In North America, IPv6 has a 2ms advantage over IPv4.[2]

This is *as measured* not based on theory.

My hypothesis, supported but unproven, is that when a device uses or prefers IPv6 (such as on an IPv6-only network with translation) and tries to reach an IPv4 destination, the device uses software CLAT to convert IPv4 to IPv6 in the device before forwarding. This would be the case, e.g., for an Android device on an IPv6-only network like T-Mobile, maybe Charter. [3] I haven't seen the new Windows CLAT, but it wouldn't be surprising.

It is fair to say that in general or overall, IPv6 has a slight performance advantage over IPv6. That may not hold true for all permutations of endpoints or devices, so your individual experience may vary.

Lee

[1] e.g.,

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load-20-40-...

[2] https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf/XQ

[3] Measurements and explanation at https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/06/25/why-is-ipv6-faster/

...

Fundamentally, IPv6 should be slower because of the bigger

...

But it could be faster because CG-NAT detour (if CG-NAT is not on the shortest path). IPv4 and IPv6 could both be faster/slower because of non-congruent

On 12/2/2025 2:09 AM, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: headers/overhead. peering topology.

...

Actually, the claim that IPv6 is faster is pretty silly. Ed/

...

-----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 07:42 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

On 01.12.2025 16:44 Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s. Have you checked packet loss and latency?

Maybe that is caused by different routes due to peering.

-- kind regards Marco

Send spam to abfall1764603853@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

---

NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/EBHOWLWP... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/IL5AHCAX...

I may do that. I haven't gotten to the point where I want to. Imagine your parents or grandparents call in wanting to speak to an agent only to end up listening to a recording. That's frustrating for the end user. Like when you call any 800 number and it starts giving you options and wanting you to provide information to talk to the right department who of course answers only to transfer you to a different department. On Tue, Dec 2, 2025, 1:53 PM Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:

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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> 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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

> > > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> > 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5M7ANDNU...

---

NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JW5R7VO7...

My experience has actually been that if I can likely determine the cause BEFORE they speak to a representative and I can play a message informing them "We have noticed your equipment may have lost power, please check the power to your equipment before continuing", my customer satisfaction actually goes up. I wouldn't suggest playing it for everyone, just those where you have seen that last gap. Shane On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:04 PM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

I may do that. I haven't gotten to the point where I want to.

Imagine your parents or grandparents call in wanting to speak to an agent only to end up listening to a recording. That's frustrating for the end user. Like when you call any 800 number and it starts giving you options and wanting you to provide information to talk to the right department who of course answers only to transfer you to a different department.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2025, 1:53 PM Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:

...

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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> 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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 < > nanog@lists.nanog.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG < > nanog@lists.nanog.org> > > 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ... > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > > https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5M7ANDNU...

---

NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JW5R7VO7...

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 11:09 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

Fundamentally, IPv6 should be slower because of the bigger headers/overhead.

Hi Vasilenko, Everything else being equal, IPv6 would have roughly 1.3% less throughput. The math is straightforward: 20 bytes larger header on 1500 byte packets, 20/1500 = 0.013 for throughput. The latency difference is determined by the total packet size including header and data which is the same or smaller with IPv6 -- both are limited by the 1500 byte Ethernet frame size. Even on the initial packets smaller than the frame size, the difference in transmission time over gigabit or better links is so small it disappears into the noise. So, no impact at all. That's it. If you're experiencing slower IPv6 or slower IPv4, it's all about the network engineering. Your network path to a server which satisfies one address is longer or transits a slower link in the path than the one which satisfies the other. Regards, Bill Herrin -- For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

On 12/2/25 3:57 PM, Matthew Petach via NANOG wrote:

So, if we limit packets to a constant small size, say 53 bytes, we'd have faster connections, right?

I think we should make a proposal for a new internet standard--this would help speed up network connections for everyone!

Now we just need a catchy name for the new standard packet size...something like "Accelerated Transfer Methodology" that the trade publications can splash across the headlines in 18 point type.

I've heard ATM defined as something else.. ATM didn't die, it just moved internal to the routing chipsets :-) -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

Back in the day it was the unplugged dial-up modem. The gentle method support would use is tell them that sometimes the power plug to the wall needed to be turned around to work properly. Amazing how many customers came right back to the phone saying "Yup! that was it!" (yeah...sure.) On December 2, 2025 at 13:53 nanog@lists.nanog.org (Shane Ronan via NANOG) wrote:

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 <nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com

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 <beecher@beecher.cc> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> 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 < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

> > > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> > 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/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/NMBYWMNZ...

...

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/5M7ANDNU...

---

NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/JW5R7VO7...

---

NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/UUXBX5FX...

-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

I am not trying to make any speculation here. If user needs to transmit 320kB (average Web page) or 4GB video, then additional overhead would slow down the transmission. (all other things equal, for the typical or average b your choice) The right message could be “IPv6 is fundamentally slower than IPv4 because of bigger headers, but we need to tolerate it because everybody should have the equal rights to be connected to the Internet. IPv4 has twice smaller address space then the number of people on the planet.” Ed/ From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 23:58 To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 11:09 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org<mailto:nanog@lists.nanog.org>> wrote: Fundamentally, IPv6 should be slower because of the bigger headers/overhead. You know, you might just be onto something there. If we just made *all* the packets smaller, we'd have less latency, right? So, if we limit packets to a constant small size, say 53 bytes, we'd have faster connections, right? I think we should make a proposal for a new internet standard--this would help speed up network connections for *everyone*! Now we just need a catchy name for the new standard packet size...something like "Accelerated Transfer Methodology" that the trade publications can splash across the headlines in 18 point type. I don't know why nobody thought of this before! Matt

Why?!?

-----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 10:13 To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

Am 03.12.2025 um 06:59:51 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard:

...

Wrong math. The internet average packet size is very close to 750B - it has been published many times in many places.

Wrong assumption about the user needs. User does not care about serialization time. He/she cares about FCT==Flow Completion Time. If one would get 2.6% less on the bottleneck, then his FCT would be 2.6% longer. His page would open later. His file would download later.

Your theoretical arguments have been discussed many times, it is now boring.

The real experience shows that IPv6 is faster in certain real existing environments like cellular networks (many people use them even at home) or DS-Lite. I've also experienced overloaded CGNAT. The shorter header is almost irrelevant in practice.

-- Gruß Marco

Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1764741591muell@cartoonies.org

On Dec 2, 2025, at 12:41 PM, Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

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.

Well, I’ve heard it said too that decades ago, your new vehicle owners manual told you how to rebuild the carburetor. And today it tells you not to drink the battery acid… Society definitely has, IMHO, gotten significantly more stupid in recent years. ---- Andy Ringsmuth andy@andyring.com Love others, encourage others, help others.

It's because it took them so long to tell people not to drink the battery acid, it was too late. -- Ryland ------ Original Message ------ From "Andy Ringsmuth via NANOG" <nanog@lists.nanog.org> To "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Cc "Andy Ringsmuth" <andy@andyring.com> Date 12/3/2025 9:10:22 AM Subject Re: IPv4 Pricing

...

On Dec 2, 2025, at 12:41 PM, Josh Luthman via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

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.

Well, I’ve heard it said too that decades ago, your new vehicle owners manual told you how to rebuild the carburetor. And today it tells you not to drink the battery acid…

Society definitely has, IMHO, gotten significantly more stupid in recent years.

---- Andy Ringsmuth andy@andyring.com

Love others, encourage others, help others.

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/VMAYVS7T...

Show me literally any data to support your hypothesis. I showed my work, with measurements and analysis. For example, you could use the APNIC Labs data I showed to compare newer and older networks. We might then ask how old those networks are. Then for anyone concerned that IPv6 would be slower on their network, they could compare their network's age. Without that data, and with all of the data I have see, I have to conclude that you are simply wrong about IPv6 being slower. Lee On 12/3/2025 2:20 AM, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:

...

My hypothesis, supported but unproven My hypothesis, supported but unproven: IPv6 is activated on new networks. New networks have a bigger capacity and better hardware/software. Moreover, new networks have been designed with the bigger previous experience. It is not always the case, but typically, new things are better than the previous generation. Ed/ -----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 20:28 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

Before you call people silly, you might want to collect some data.

You would think IPv6 headers would add processing time, but that turns out not to be the case. Yes, they may sometimes be routed along different paths, but I have seen IPv6 have fewer hops and lower latency as often as I've seen IPv4 be faster. When I was at a large network, I published these results, measuring from many points in the network to many common destinations, and there was no predictable difference.

This is true for CGN, firewall, load balancer, router, translator, or any other hardware. The *only* exception is some limited release devices that kicked IPv6 forwarding to the software plane; I would argue that that is not IPv6 support. If anyone else has contrary experience or data, please share. To be fair, such devices also do not add measurable latency in performing NAT44.

Many networks have reported that IPv6 has lower latency, in fact.[1]  In North America, IPv6 has a 2ms advantage over IPv4.[2]

This is *as measured* not based on theory.

My hypothesis, supported but unproven, is that when a device uses or prefers IPv6 (such as on an IPv6-only network with translation) and tries to reach an IPv4 destination, the device uses software CLAT to convert IPv4 to IPv6 in the device before forwarding. This would be the case, e.g., for an Android device on an IPv6-only network like T-Mobile, maybe Charter.  [3] I haven't seen the new Windows CLAT, but it wouldn't be surprising.

It is fair to say that in general or overall, IPv6 has a slight performance advantage over IPv6. That may not hold true for all permutations of endpoints or devices, so your individual experience may vary.

Lee

[1] e.g., https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load-20- 40-faster-over-ipv6/

[2] https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf/XQ

[3] Measurements and explanation at https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/06/25/why-is-ipv6-faster/

...

Fundamentally, IPv6 should be slower because of the bigger

On 12/2/2025 2:09 AM, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: headers/overhead.

...

But it could be faster because CG-NAT detour (if CG-NAT is not on the shortest path). IPv4 and IPv6 could both be faster/slower because of non-congruent peering topology. Actually, the claim that IPv6 is faster is pretty silly. Ed/

...

-----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 07:42 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

On 01.12.2025 16:44 Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s. Have you checked packet loss and latency?

Maybe that is caused by different routes due to peering.

-- kind regards Marco

Send spam to abfall1764603853@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

---

NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/EBHOWL WPDOYOV2ATJPYBAA2CLI6SMIEE/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/IL5AHCA XCZRJACSQMCFETQEY4GDVX57L/

Hi Lee, 1. Yes, indeed, https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf shows -6.1ms globally. Highly probably, Geoff did everything right, we could trust the numbers. But sorry, there is no explanation why? At least, I have never seen anything that could be called "prove". Your speculation is the same reliable as mine. Actually, mine (about new networks -> high quality) looks more probable for me. Oceania, Africa numbers (+2.62ms, +7.32ms) looks like indirect prove to this speculation - they have less money to construct high quality networks. 2. RTT does not matter. Not at all. Because it is not visible for the end user directly and it has negligible influence for the good Congestion Control (like BBR). User cares only about the FCT (flow completion time). FCT is dependent on (in priority): 1) bottleneck bandwidth, 2) packet loss, 3) congestion control convergence, 4) RTT (but only if congestion control is bad), and a few other things. Subtracting 2.6(6)% of the goodput (because of bigger overhead) make IPv6 fundamentally slower (for the all other things equal). Almost any session (except ssh) would be delayed. IMHO: by 1.6% it is justified, IP address space should be expanded. 1.0(6)% is lost (4B+4B in addresses used not for addressing) just because of consensus process in the IETF. But even if something is 1) fully justified or 2) the lost is small (1.0(6)%?): if it slower then it is not faster. Ed/

-----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 23:15 To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>; North American Network Operators Group <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

Show me literally any data to support your hypothesis. I showed my work, with measurements and analysis.

For example, you could use the APNIC Labs data I showed to compare newer and older networks. We might then ask how old those networks are. Then for anyone concerned that IPv6 would be slower on their network, they could compare their network's age.

Without that data, and with all of the data I have see, I have to conclude that you are simply wrong about IPv6 being slower.

Lee

...

...

My hypothesis, supported but unproven My hypothesis, supported but unproven: IPv6 is activated on new networks. New networks have a bigger capacity and better hardware/software. Moreover, new networks have been designed with the bigger previous experience. It is not always the case, but typically, new things are better than

...

Ed/

...

-----Original Message----- From: Lee Howard via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 20:28 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

Before you call people silly, you might want to collect some data.

You would think IPv6 headers would add processing time, but that turns out not to be the case. Yes, they may sometimes be routed along different paths, but I have seen IPv6 have fewer hops and lower latency as often as I've seen IPv4 be faster. When I was at a large network, I published these results, measuring from many points in the network to many common destinations, and there was no predictable difference.

This is true for CGN, firewall, load balancer, router, translator, or any other hardware. The *only* exception is some limited release devices that kicked IPv6 forwarding to the software plane; I would argue that that is not IPv6 support. If anyone else has contrary experience or data, please share. To be fair, such devices also do not add measurable latency in

On 12/3/2025 2:20 AM, Vasilenko Eduard wrote: the previous generation. performing NAT44.

...

...

Many networks have reported that IPv6 has lower latency, in fact.[1] In North America, IPv6 has a 2ms advantage over IPv4.[2]

This is *as measured* not based on theory.

My hypothesis, supported but unproven, is that when a device uses or prefers IPv6 (such as on an IPv6-only network with translation) and tries to reach an IPv4 destination, the device uses software CLAT to convert IPv4 to IPv6 in the device before forwarding. This would be the case, e.g., for an Android device on an IPv6-only network like T-Mobile, maybe Charter.  [3] I haven't seen the new Windows CLAT, but it wouldn't be

surprising.

...

It is fair to say that in general or overall, IPv6 has a slight performance advantage over IPv6. That may not hold true for all permutations of endpoints or devices, so your individual experience may

vary.

...

Lee

[1] e.g., https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/04/facebook-news-feeds-load -20- 40-faster-over-ipv6/

[2] https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf/XQ

[3] Measurements and explanation at https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/06/25/why-is-ipv6-faster/

...

Fundamentally, IPv6 should be slower because of the bigger

On 12/2/2025 2:09 AM, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote: headers/overhead.

...

But it could be faster because CG-NAT detour (if CG-NAT is not on the shortest path). IPv4 and IPv6 could both be faster/slower because of non-congruent peering topology. Actually, the claim that IPv6 is faster is pretty silly. Ed/

...

-----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 07:42 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

On 01.12.2025 16:44 Bryan Fields via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

At least once or twice a month I'm downloading something and will find the IPv4 to transfer significantly faster. Case in point, I downloaded the proxmox iso yesterday to a colo server with 50g uplinks. It loafed at 2.4 mbytes/s using default wget, which of course preferred ipv6. Adding -4 to wget made that shoot up to 80 mbytes/s. Have you checked packet loss and latency?

Maybe that is caused by different routes due to peering.

-- kind regards Marco

Send spam to abfall1764603853@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

---

NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/E BHOWL WPDOYOV2ATJPYBAA2CLI6SMIEE/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/I L5AHCA XCZRJACSQMCFETQEY4GDVX57L/

I completely agree that the list of reasons "why RTT of IPvX is faster/slower then IPvY" is very long. I have already mentioned a few, you have mentioned a few additional. But I have never seen a good research which one has the biggest influence. It is a still a pure speculation from all sides. In this situation, my preference is to think that new/recently_upgraded network has a better service and occasionally it has been pushed to IPv6 at the same time. And sorry, but NO - I do not have resources to conduct such a research. I would be interested to read such research, not write.

You said that so many times, it is boring now and that impact doesn't have enough weight to change the average latency in a way that IPv6 is slower in general. In the great majority of cases, it was said "IPv6 is faster" without clarification that it is for RTT that does not matter. The user is misled that it is for FCT that he/she needs. People said non-important advantage about 10^6 times - you are not boring with this. I said 3 times about important disadvantage - you are already boring.

You did touch ASIC processing. Actually, it is not important because it would be pretty fast anyway (X us). What is important that IPv6 architecture has 2x bigger meaningful address part, hence, the scalability of tables (for routing, filtering) is 2x less for all vendors and all products. Why it is 2x not 4x? Because the second half of addresses is not the address, hence, it is typically discarded from such tables. IMHO: this IPv6 deficiency is justified too, because the world needs addresses of the bigger size. As you see, IPv6 has many deficiencies against IPv4: more overhead, less scale in memory. But most of them are justified. Eduard

-----Original Message----- From: Marco Moock via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:37 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> Subject: Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)

Am 04.12.2025 um 06:22:19 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG:

...

Yes, indeed, https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf shows -6.1ms globally. Highly probably, Geoff did everything right, we could trust the numbers. But sorry, there is no explanation why?

There are various reasons:

No NAT/CGNAT No DS-Lite tunneling (less MTU and more CPU cycles on the CPE chips) Smaller routing tables Different peering/routing inside AS

If you really want the proof, you have to choose one ASN and examine all the devices and check the latencies there. There is no "this is the general reason for all". Some routers also handle SPI/NAT/routing different, especially when longer prefixes are used. I heard (never verified) that certain devices only handle IPv4 /24 and IPv6 /48 fast, the rest will be processed slower due to ASIC chip design.

...

At least, I have never seen anything that could be called "prove". Your speculation is the same reliable as mine. Actually, mine (about new networks -> high quality) looks more probable for me.

Explain the term "new". Various ISPs exist for decades and I have serious doubt that old devices are still present there. Even entire network architectures were outphased, e.g. ATM, ISDN and old DSL infrastructure.

...

2. RTT does not matter. Not at all.

That is indeed right. I saw situations where the ICMP messages of a router more hops away arrived faster than one from a hop closer. A reason is also that this stuff is most likely not processed in the ASIC based forwarding plane, but in a slower control plane. If you want to know more about that, you have to ask the router's manufacturers.

...

Because it is not visible for the end user directly and it has negligible influence for the good Congestion Control (like BBR). User cares only about the FCT (flow completion time). FCT is dependent on (in priority): 1) bottleneck bandwidth, 2) packet loss, 3) congestion control convergence, 4) RTT (but only if congestion control is bad), and a few other things. Subtracting 2.6(6)% of the goodput (because of bigger overhead) make IPv6 fundamentally slower (for the all other things equal).

You said that so many times, it is boring now and that impact doesn't have enough weight to change the average latency in a way that IPv6 is slower in general.

-- Gruß Marco

Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1764825739muell@cartoonies.org

Am 04.12.2025 um 08:24:18 Uhr schrieb Vasilenko Eduard:

In the great majority of cases, it was said "IPv6 is faster" without clarification that it is for RTT that does not matter. The user is misled that it is for FCT that he/she needs. People said non-important advantage about 10^6 times - you are not boring with this. I said 3 times about important disadvantage - you are already boring.

I've experienced faster IPv6 in real situations where CGNAT was overloaded. Measurements with speed tests are also possible, if someone want statistics about this. There are also cases where it is slower, e.g. tunneled IPv6, what I used for some years.

You did touch ASIC processing. Actually, it is not important because it would be pretty fast anyway (X us).

Pretty fast doesn't mean infinite speed. As you are saying IPv6 must be slower because of more overhead, ASIC processing is indeed relevant.

What is important that IPv6 architecture has 2x bigger meaningful address part, hence, the scalability of tables (for routing, filtering) is 2x less for all vendors and all products.

That is just an assumption without any reason. If the XOR comparison is being done in the same amount of CPU time (buswidth), the decision speed is exactly the same. This depends heavily on the actual implementation of software and hardware, there is no general answer.

Why it is 2x not 4x? Because the second half of addresses is not the address, hence, it is typically discarded from such tables.

That also depends on the hardware. Certain DFZ routers will most likely only process /48.

As you see, IPv6 has many deficiencies against IPv4: more overhead, less scale in memory. But most of them are justified.

Although, almost irrelevant in practice, as other factors are more important. -- Gruß Marco Send unsolicited bulk mail to 1764833058muell@cartoonies.org

Mike has unlimited money so it doesn't matter. The auction websites have their price and that's what it is. How come you no tattoo? On Fri, Dec 5, 2025, 6:06 PM Chris <nanog@hrcommunications.net> wrote:

...

Idiocracy started as a comedy and ended up as a documentary. Nay! It was a prophesy which has been fulfilled. There was quite a bit of effort to have it pulled. Which is ironic, as those that it targeted have no idea it's them. I mean, if you're crazy. Do you know it? Or do you just believe that it's everyone else

On 2025-12-03 07:11, Josh Luthman via NANOG wrote: that's crazy?

It's a shame that the OP never got the answer they were looking for and that their topic was hijacked.

TO THE OP: I pay $2 an IP for anything < /24 from my LIR. I pay considerably less from my RIR for > /24.

HTH

--Chris

...

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:10 AM Andy Ringsmuth via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

...

...

On Dec 2, 2025, at 12:41 PM, Josh Luthman via NANOG < nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:

I manage the entire thing and let me give you an example of a ticket

...

...

...

this morning. The customer called in and said they unplugged some

from 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.

Well, I’ve heard it said too that decades ago, your new vehicle owners manual told you how to rebuild the carburetor. And today it tells you not to drink the battery acid…

Society definitely has, IMHO, gotten significantly more stupid in recent years.

---- Andy Ringsmuth andy@andyring.com

Love others, encourage others, help others.

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/VMAYVS7T... _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/LOV3U62Y...