>but nowadays, some are going all v6.

Where is there v6 only services/content?

>v4-only ISPs will be at a competitive disadvantage

That's such a wild claim I'd love to know where you come to that conclusion.  In my rural market, we're the only option for service, simple as that.  In the urban areas we find it's all about price promos to get the customer the lowest price.  These same people can't tell the difference between three different companies (we were installing fiber next door and a guy kept asking us if we were Spectrum, he simply didn't understand we were a different company).  They don't understand the difference between the internet and WiFi.  Yet they'll prefer a v6 ISP over a v4 ISP?  Come on.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 3:24 PM netElastic Systems <tmitchell@netelastic.com> wrote:

FWIW, most of my ISPs all know about dual stack and want it.  I think the
legacy websites, CPE and applications that hard code IPv4 make it a tough
battle - it's easier to just support v4, but nowadays, some are going all
v6.  At some point, v4-only ISPs will be at a competitive disadvantage.
ISPs that force this will not have to buy CGNAT or spend $60 on a v4
address, but yes, it's still a tough slog.

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tmitchell=netelastic.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of
Tim Howe
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: V6 still not supported

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:46:56 -0500
Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> ISP here.  Deploying gigabit FTTH.  No IPv6.
>
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6.  0 Complaints since 2006.

Right.  And this view point (which I have /some/ sympathy for) is what we're
up against.  The average person doesn't know IPv6 is a thing, so of course
they aren't going to ask for it. But they don't know IPv4 is a thing either,
they just want to connect to the Internet.

        It seems to require an unusual, and difficult-to-justify, drive to
make IPv6 happen as part of a forward-looking strategy.

        ISPs don't deploy it because equipment vendors don't really supply
it (or barely).  Equipment vendors don't supply it because ISPs don't ask
for it (at least that's what my vendors tell me, and I don't think they are
lying).

        Our standard PON and Metro services are dual-stack by default -
commercial and residential.  Our supplied CPEs are dual stack by default.
We offer IPv6 in a variety of configurations on every connectivity product
that will support it.

        However, I do not really blame those who don't, because in order to
get where we are I had to make it my personal mission in life to get to a
passive FTTP configuration that would work with functional parity between v4
and v6...
        For over a year I had to test gear, which requires a lot of time and
effort and study and support and managerial latitude.  I had to isolate bugs
and spend the time reporting them, which often means making a pain in the
butt out of yourself and championing the issue with the vendor (sometimes it
means committing to buying things).  I had to INSIST on support from vendors
and refuse to buy things that didn't work.  I had to buy new gear I would
not have otherwise needed.
I also had to "fire" a couple of vendors and purge them from my network; I
even sent back an entire shipment of gear to a vendor due to broken
promises.

        Basically I had to be extremely unreasonable.  My position is unique
in that I was able to do these things and get away with it.  I can't blame
anyone for not going down that road.  I'm still waiting to feel like it was
worth it.

--TimH