On 9/4/21 2:44 PM, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote:
SixXS shut down 4 years ago, to get ISPs to move their butts... as long as there are tunnels, they do not have a business case.
I saw that.
See also https://www.sixxs.net/sunset/ and the "Call Your ISP for IPv6" thing in 2016: https://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Call_Your_ISP_for_IPv6 along with plans.
I have contacted my ISP and inquired about IPv6 one or more times every year that I've been using them.
You people keep on giving money to ISPs that are not providing the service you want.
Are you talking generally or are you using me as an example (read: scapegoat)? -- It's okay if you are. I'd like to delve further into this idea. I have three ISPs in my town of just shy of 100k people within an hour drive of the largest city in the state of more than 700k people. - Municipal fiber - 1 Gbps - IPv4 only - $50 / month - Local cable co. - ~100 Mbps - IPv4 and IPv6 - for $100 / month - ILEC xDSL - ~50 Mbps - why would I look - for $100 month There may be cellular Internet options, but those aren't ... economical, especially for streaming. Of those three which would you choose? So ... I think I'm in quite the same position as John L. is.
Tunnels are VPNs
I concede the technical point and move on.
So, that makes sense that services that need to 'protect their IP' (silly property) because they did not figure out people might live anywhere in the world might want to pay for things and receive service... [sic]
I agree there is some questionable ... /thought/ going on somewhere. -- I'm reluctant to call it /logic/. I agree that some people are trying to circumvent geographical restrictions. However, my wife and I are not. We want to access content that's for the address we have on file with the companies, that we have service at, and that we receive the paper bills at. -- As I've stated before in other threads, I believe that companies are capable of adding 1 + 1 + 1 to get 3. If they /wanted/ to. As such, I can only surmise that they do not /want/ to correlate the multiple addresses and allow us to view content for the same market.
IPv6 tunnels where meant as a transition mechanism, as a way for engineers to test IPv6 before it was wide spread.
And seeing as how I can't get IPv6 natively from multiple providers that I've worked with in the last 20 years, I can only surmise that we as an industry are still transitioning from single stack to dual stack.
Deploying IPv6 is easy, and due to IPv4-squeeze (unless you have slave monopoly money and can just buy 2% of the address space), you could have spent the last 25 years getting ready for this day. And especially in the last 5 - 10 years, deploying IPv6 has been easy, due to all the work by many many many people around the world in testing and actively deploying IPv6. Of course there are still platforms that don't support DHCPv6 for instance, but things are easy, stable and often properly battle tested.
And yet here we are. As a consumer I have no effective influence.
As this is NANOG.... and people on the list are ISPs and it is 2021, thus IPv6 being 25+ years old, the best that is left to do is:
And that's arguably what my city did. They got together and installed municipal fiber. Save for the lack of IPv6, it wins on all counts; faster, cheaper, better customer service, and other non-technical perks. Just no IPv6. Hence why I have historically augmented my municipal GPON with an H.E. IPv6 tunnel. -- In fact, I am going to continue with said H.E. IPv6 tunnel, just without advertising it to the network (RA / DHCPv6). I will have to statically configure IPv6 on things that I want to use it on. The rest of the home network will be IPv4 only. I feel like 1995 called and want's their single stack Internet back. <ASCII tear> So, Jeroen, what would you recommend that people like John L. and myself do? -- Grant. . . . unix || die