cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

IPv6 Petition

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 189
Thanks: 40
Registered: ‎30-07-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition

That's a good one

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 277
Thanks: 38
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎10-08-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition



@SimonHobson wrote:

I suspect they don't see much of a business opportunity in IPv6. Yes there will be a small number of customers asking for it, but probably not nearly enough to justify (in themselves) the costs involved.

I agree.  For the most part I meant it was me missing out on the business opportunities, along with  anyone else mildly interested in helping PN customers do more with their WAN connections than browse the web.

 

Remember that probably 99+% of customers don't know what IPv6 is, and wouldn't know if they were using it or not.

If you want an indication of how many people just "sign up, plug in, use what arrives" try looking at the wireless networks in your neighbourhood. From where I'm sat, I can only see one network that isn't on a default name - there's BT..., SKY..., TALKTALK ..., one default TP-Link..., and an HP printer - plus just one non-default network.

Ahh the tyranny of the majority Wink  According to that logic, BT/PN should never have offered FTTC, because the majority of consumers do not want to pay for it? 

 

Even the one not using a default wireless name robably doesn't care about NAT, or carrier grade NAT, or IP-what?

That's fine.  Caring about IPX, IP4, PPP, ADSL, VPNs, FTTC, SIP et al, before most other people had even heard of it, pretty much paid for my house.  I think it is a huge shame PN have become content to follow.   

 

And at work, I've been looking into starting to use IPv6 - but not really gone very far given zero interest from manglement. We've not been asked about it at all, not once, by any of the customers we provide connectivity to. Not a single customer has ever asked about it.

You wait to be asked?  How very quaint.  Cheesy

 

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 189
Thanks: 40
Registered: ‎30-07-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition


@mssystems wrote:
Ahh the tyranny of the majority Wink  According to that logic, BT/PN should never have offered FTTC, because the majority of consumers do not want to pay for it? 

 

 

Ah, not so. I think you are confusing two different things here. Probably no-one actually asked for FTTC - I bet a lot asked for "mooar speed"*. They don't care whether it arrived by fibre, "copper sold as fibre", carrier pigeon, or plain magic - they just want "mooar speed".

And when it does arrive, they unpack the ISP supplied [-Censored-] router and plug it in - with all the default settings.

I guess it's a sign of how much progress has happened since I first got started with networking, but they probably don't even know what IP is, let alone care whether it's v4 or v6 - and if it worked, they'd not care if it was IPX or AppleTalk !

* They may have asked for FTTC - but only because someone told them that they had to ask for that if they wanted "mooar speed". Suddenly this sketch comes to mind Grin

Highlighted
Newbie
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎14-07-2015

Re: IPv6 Petition

Added my name and posted to social media.

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 141
Thanks: 6
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎13-08-2014

Re: IPv6 Petition


SimonHobson wrote: 

Ah, not so. I think you are confusing two different things here. Probably no-one actually asked for FTTC - I bet a lot asked for "mooar speed"*. They don't care whether it arrived by fibre, "copper sold as fibre", carrier pigeon, or plain magic - they just want "mooar speed".

 

 

In the same way that people are not "asking" for IPv6, but want reduced latency and more reliable connections for XBox games (which currently use Teredo tunnelling which has an overhead) or better connectivity to online services and P2P scenarios (audio and video calls, file sharing etc) or more reliable streaming services (using IPv6 multicast). Maybe they want the improved security (as the massive address space makes port scanning very impractical).

 

We're only "asking" for IPv6 in this forum because we want some or all of the above features for ourselves, but it'd be a bit pointless asking for them separately. Go ask the 12 o'clock flashers (SFW) whether they want those improvements and I don't think you'll find many that disagree!

Just spent the weekend at someone's house on Sky Broadband. They're still an AOL user (don't ask) but their connection is fully IPv6 enabled and worked like a dream. They neither know nor care, but they're futureproof now (of sorts!)

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 189
Thanks: 40
Registered: ‎30-07-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition

You've hit a nail fairly full on the head there. Other than the latency effects of Teredo (which AIUI MS are phasing out), most of what you cite are side effects of NAT. People generally don't know about NAT (other than when something "doesn't work") and don't care - but the absence of it makes things just "better".

And I think I know one or two 12-o'clock flashers. That's a great bit from Wes Borg's Internet Helpdesk sketch. If you haven't already seen it, I guarantee it's 7 minutes of your life you won't consider wasted Grin He so captures the essence of users and helldisks.

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 277
Thanks: 38
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎10-08-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition


@SimonHobson wrote:

@mssystems wrote:
Ahh the tyranny of the majority Wink  According to that logic, BT/PN should never have offered FTTC, because the majority of consumers do not want to pay for it? 

Ah, not so. I think you are confusing two different things here. Probably no-one actually asked for FTTC - I bet a lot asked for "mooar speed"*. They don't care whether it arrived by fibre, "copper sold as fibre", carrier pigeon, or plain magic - they just want "mooar speed".

The last time I looked, FTTC penetration was >50% but adoption <25%.  So no, I don't believe I am confusing anything.  You however, are arguing for technological progress to be no faster than the needs of the lowest common denominator, which is an anachronism to my mind.  You are also condescending "a lot" of PN's customers.

 

And when it does arrive, they unpack the ISP supplied [-Censored-] router and plug it in - with all the default settings.

As is their choice and despite which, the market for [i]more performant [sic] [/i] domestic and soho routers, continues to rise.  Pretty much every router released in the last 5 years has been IP6 compliant, of course.

 

I guess it's a sign of how much progress has happened since I first got started with networking, but they probably don't even know what IP is, let alone care whether it's v4 or v6 - and if it worked, they'd not care if it was IPX or AppleTalk !

Just LOL.  IPX and AppleTalk (XNS) demanded far less intervention than IP4 does.  But this progress you speak of.  Do you think it happened because no one cared and no one asked?  Of course not.  The internet is the mass market, commercial success it has become, for the sole reason a tiny minority of academics, engineers and early adopters cared enough to bother themselves with the details.  Unique addressing being about the most fundamental detail there is.

 

 

* They may have asked for FTTC - but only because someone told them that they had to ask for that if they wanted "mooar speed". Suddenly this sketch comes to mind Grin

I am old enough to have seen that sketch the first time around  on BBC2 and I fear you have missed the point of it.  The Hi-Fi shop sketch is mocking the 'expert' shop assistant, who resorts to patronising his customers.

 

This sketch provides a better example of PN's attitude to IP6, I feel Cheesy

 

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 189
Thanks: 40
Registered: ‎30-07-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition


mssystems wrote:


The last time I looked, FTTC penetration was >50% but adoption <25%.  So no, I don't believe I am confusing anything.

I think you are. As I said, very few will have asked for ${technology-de-jour} other than having seen/heard the news that  ${technology-de-jour} is what they need to ask for to get more speed. The fact that takeup of FTTC is <25% simply shows that a large proportion of people don't feel the need for more speed (especially as it generally costs more).

The point I'm making is that end users don't care about the technology behind it - they just want the internet at whatever balance of cost-vs speed they are happy with. I know it's easy for us tehnical people to think otherwise, but really, the majority really don't care if it's FTTC, FTTH, or supersonic carrier pigeon as long as it works and is "fast enough".

For the majority, if you hear them talking about FTTC then that's not because they have a clue what it is - it's just that it's the "buzzword" they heard is the secret to unlocking faster speeds.

You however, are arguing for technological progress to be no faster than the needs of the lowest common denominator, which is an anachronism to my mind.

Again, you've misread what I put. If that were the case, I'd be arguing that since the majority don't need FTTC speeds, then we shouldn't have FTTC - and I'm not. Many don't, and that's evident in the numbers you cited.

You are also condescending "a lot" of PN's customers.

Really ? I think if you talk to a typical helldesk person you'll find that is exactly the type that makes up "a lot" of their customers. A lesser proportion (probably) than BT or Sky, but I reckon you'll find the majority by a long way are of this level.

I'd be surprised if the proportion of customers who even know what IPv6 is makes upper single digits %. The majority don't know what it is, or why it's "good for them" - but they want the benefits they don't know come from it. Again, they want an end result (better latency, more reliable peer-peer stuff, etc) as mentioned above - but they don't care how it happens as long as it does.

To illustrate, SWMBO doesn't know what an IP address is - and doesn't care. Before I met her, she had the standard issue StalkStalk router on it's default WiFi settings - opened the box, plugged it in, and as it worked, happy. Someone else had to connect her devices to the WiFi for her. All she needs/wants to know is "internet works"<period>.

You may dispute that, but this is the profile of the majority of customers. It's also why if you phone up the helldesk, they'll walk you through a condescending flowchart of checking what to you and me are really really obvious things - because to some people (I'm not making this up, though it is a tiny number) "is it plugged in and switched on" isn't an obvious check to make Huh

Community Veteran
Posts: 26,786
Thanks: 989
Fixes: 10
Registered: ‎10-04-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition

I wonder how many of the people who signed this petition have since left Plusnet?

jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£14.40/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 277
Thanks: 38
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎10-08-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition

I am still here but mainly because it costs me next to nothing, thanks to the years of referring business to PN.  The last two ISP reviews I carried out went to ISPs who support IP6, despite being a little more expensive.   I have also had to turn down my first potential customer who is already invested in IP6.

I don't know about an exodus of existing subscribers but PN are unlikely to attract any new, forward thinking customers.  Unfortunately, "The customer is too stupid."  Becomes a self selecting argument - Hence my disinterest engaging with it.

Highlighted
Rising Star
Posts: 189
Thanks: 40
Registered: ‎30-07-2007

Re: IPv6 Petition

Have a thumbs up from me for that.