On 11/29/19 11:29 AM, Brian Knight wrote:
0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
I help admin a very small (<1k subs, but growing) municipal ISP. We have had a couple requests from residential subscribers for IPv6 which is not yet enabled due to lack of support for a nice, but not strictly required, feature from one vendor in our stack (and they have opened a feature request and promised support in the next release - we'll see if they deliver). If a SP with <1k subs has ANY registered interest, I'd say a non-trivial SP is going to have some even if it's not being communicated. Certainly, to me, if I have a choice of service providers, and one offers native IPv6 (or even well-supported 6rd) while the other offers no IPv6 and has no plans or is even downright IPv6-hostile (e.g. mucking with protocol 41), that's certainly going to factor into my decision. This is a pre-sales issue which, on standard consumer services, is unlikely to ever be communicated to the provider. However, I'll admit that I'm not a normal customer. Interestingly, albeit somewhat unsurprisingly, interest from enterprises on DIA services (where the aforementioned feature is irrelevant) has been not just nonexistent but outright hostile. Every one of them has asked to have it explicitly disabled when prompted. Enterprise is definitely the lagging factor, here. I suspect it's at least partially because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to support first-class dual stack, many enterprise IT folks lack the education to recognize the nuance between public addressing and unfiltered public reachability of a given host. I suspect many of them are already using IPv6 for LAN traffic without even realizing it given Windows' penchant for doing so since Vista. -- Brandon Martin