From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:33:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87y3ft9zwg.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> References: <20180602055717.GB17899@1wt.eu> <330e58f3-61d3-6abc-4f7c-1726e0ce852d@enhancedip.org> <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Eric Dumazet , Tom Herbert , Sam Patton , Linux Kernel Network Developers To: Willy Tarreau Return-path: Received: from canardo.mork.no ([148.122.252.1]:36843 "EHLO canardo.mork.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751788AbeFEMde (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:33:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180604043426.GB11775@1wt.eu> (Willy Tarreau's message of "Mon, 4 Jun 2018 06:34:26 +0200") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Willy Tarreau writes: > I agree on these points, but I'd like to figure what can be done to put > a bit more pressure on ISPs to *always* provide IPv6. Most ISPs are in it for the money. So what you can do is either to make it more expensive to provide IPv4-only services or more profitable to provide dual-stack services. Making IPv4 more expensive is probably hard. Even ISPs having to buy address space still figure it is cheaper than IPv6 with NAT64 or other CGN solutions. So what you need to do is simply to convince enough of your friends to pay the price of IPv6. The fact is that adding IPv6 still has real costs and no real benefit for an ISP. There just aren't enough geeks voting with their wallet to make a difference. And even if "everything" supports IPv6, there will always be an extra set of bugs and additional operational problems with *any* optional feature you enable. IPv6 is no exception. Enthusiasts within the ISPs is the only reason there is any ISP providing dual-stack services at all. > I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine > with less), Any reason you would want less? Any reason the ISP should give you less? > Maybe setting up a public list of ISPs where users don't have at least > a /60 by default could help, but I suspect that most of them will > consider that as long as their competitors are on the list there's no > emergency. Exactly. And the number of users using the list as the primary parameter for selecting an ISP would be close to 0. The critical part is not the list, but making large enough groups of users consider IPv6 an important parameter when selecting ISPs. Disclaimer: I work for an ISP providing dual-stack services on multiple access technologies, in a market where no other major ISP does that. We have done it for 6 years now, and haven't see any tendency that end users prefer us over competitors based on IPv6. Media interest is none. IPv6 is not even mentioned in articles claiming to compare services. Bj=C3=B8rn