Re: [v6ops] Turning on IPv6 Routers

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Lee Howard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Fred Baker wrote:
>>> "If IPv4 router operation is enabled by default, enable IPv6 router
>>> operation by default."
>>
>> this is undoubtedly well-intentioned, and the idealist bit in me
>> sympathises with the principal.  However with my enable hat on, a
>> recommendation like this isn't going to fix any problem associated with
>> ipv6 adoption.
>>
>> The problems with ipv6 adoption revolve entirely around cost/benefit.
>
> I disagree.
> IPv6 enablement by the ISP requires work. But once it's enabled, there's often a gap between "100% enabled" and "100% active" that is directly due to CPE either not supporting or not enabling IPv6.

For operators deploying Native IPv6, I would say this sounds about
right.  I can't say my area is representative of the entire world, but
here, once IPv6 was on for the upstream provider, it only took an IPv6
enabled CPE (which I assisted in for multiple folks) to get full IPv6
service (dual stack in the cases I saw).

Operators will likely get their boxes upto IPv6 standard on their own.
Depending on how they decided to IPv6 enable a given sets of customer
endpoints (or residence) , it may require a call (i.e. provisioning
modes can be different for enabled and non-enabled IPv6 customer
sites).  Operators will likely track their ability to have IPv6
working for a given residence based on their own CPEs
capability/support (if they offer that).


>
>
>> Pressing problems still include things that should have been resolved
>> years ago, e.g. vendors charging extra for ipv6 support (today's
>> bugbear: provisioning system vendors, please note that charging extra
>> for basic ipv6 functionality is destructive in the long term and
>> corrosive for your customer relationships)
>
> It's great that there are others to choose from. It's unfortunate that the marginal cost to buy and integrate is higher than the extra  fee for feature support. That recalcitrant vendor better hope you love them enough to stay.

I have not actually experienced ISPs charing more for IPv6 to date.
Early adaptor ISPs seem to have done it as part of the standard
offering (incremental network costs likely buried in normal
development cycles since it can require significant  upgrades - at
least historically - to ready the entire network and provisioning
systems to support IPv6).


>
>>
>> As a separate issue, from an operational point of view, implicit
>> enabling of functionality in one area when it's explicitly enabled in
>> another is something that needs to be handled carefully because
>> otherwise you can end up violating the principal of least astonishment.
>
> Once it's enabled at the edge, it seems more astonishing to me when it doesn't work than when it does. The vast majority of IPv6 tickets I've seen have been "Why don't I have it yet?"

If you look at the message boards for areas where there are tech savvy
customers, you can see many trying to get IPv6 working on their own
CPEs or using the operator's provide one , once IPv6 is known to be
available.  Example here -
- http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30687933-Internet-Rogers-IPv6-appears-to-be-rolling-out
- http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30238214-TELUS-IPv6-on-GPON-CE-network

>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
> Lee
>

regards,

Victor K