Withdrawl of IPv6 Technical Trial

[Anonymous]

Which are ?

[VileReynard]

In the CG-NAT exercise, I discovered FTP, bit-torrent, remote SSH, TOR didn't work.
I suspect anything that runs as a server process on the desktop via port forwarding would fail.

[pjmarsh]

That is CG-NAT though, which is nothing to do with IPv6.
Phil

[VileReynard]

I assume Plusnet aren't offering end to end ipv6?
I thought the plan was going to be CG-NAT over ipv6 with end connections being ipv4?

[MJN]

No; CG-NAT is provided as a service side-by-side with IPv6.
Its purpose is merely to allow IPv4 connectivity with what you might call the 'IPv4 Internet'. It is only required as a temporary measure until 'everyone' (to be defined) has IPv6 connectivity at which point it can be turned off.
CG-NAT is expensive and, as you found out on the trial, not good for many protocols and so it would be provided only for as long as it is absolutely required.
There is a technique, called DS Lite, which approximates what you have described however I've not heard Plusnet talk about it. However, even then native IPv6 is provided - it's only the IPv4 packets that are encapsulated and passed through a CG-NAT en route.

[pjmarsh]

I've not been directly involved in either trial, but have been keeping an eye on them.
There was an IPv6 trial.  When you connected with the trial usernames you got both an IPv4 address and a block of IPv6 addresses, with IPv6 being end to end
There was also a separate CG-NAT trial.  That was IPv4 only, presumably to allow Plusnet to continue increasing their customer numbers without increasing their (increasingly hard to come by) IP blocks.
Phil

[MJN]

That's right, and the full service rollout would be an amalgamation of the two:
1. Native IPv6 connectivity to the customer with a public IPv6 address (range), and
2. Native IPv4 connectivity to the customer with a private IPv4 address which is translated by the CG-NAT into a public IPv4 address on to the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Quote from: vilefoxdemonofdoom

I assume Plusnet aren't offering end to end ipv6?

That is correct,  the purpose of the technical trial associated with this thread, WAS to allow customers to experiment and test having NATIVE (end-to-end) IPv6.
This has nothing to do with CG-NAT,  and is not the same as those people who are getting IPv6 on their networks by using a 'tunnel' to encapsulate IPv6 over their Plusnet IPv4 connection, in order to reach IPv6 websites and services on the wider internet.
As the IPv6 trial ended more than a year ago, and at the time it was suggested that IPv6 was going live soon, the resurrection of this thread is mainly to find out why it is taking so long for IPv6 to become part of the standard Plusnet service offering.

[MJN]

Hopefully if we make enough noise Plusnet might pipe up and letting us know what's going on!

[avatastic]

As opposed to their ususal response of going "La-la-la-la-la we caaaaan't heaaaaar you" you mean?  ;D
They're still probably trying to work out how to get the IWF proxy working with IPv6...

[MJN]

Whilst I'd be jostling to be the first in the queue for native IPv6 connectivity I can see why an ISP might keep quiet about their IPv6 rollout for commercial reasons. In a competitive market it usually pays to be one step ahead of your competitors, or to turn it around at least not be one step behind them.
With an imminent depletion of IPv4 address space there could easily be ISP's, whose sole existence is of course to provide Internet connectivty (which requires address space to do so), who end up being unable to grow due to lack of address space. A company that doesn't grow dies. If an ISP is 'IPv6 ready' and can do so at the proverbial flick of a switch then it may see competitive advantage by waiting until the last minute to do so in the hope that others who are not ready get caught by the lion.
I would not be surprised if this is what's happening - the collective 'herd' of ISPs may appear to be moving slowly on the subject but in reality they may well all be of the opinion that it's the slowest that will get caught - the rest just need to be going only slightly faster and they'll survive.
That, or they're just clueless. And I honestly don't know where to put my money given that companies are usually controlled by the accountants and they might be planning only on a quarter by quarter basis as in the current climate the company might not be around to reap the rewards of any long term planning if it doesn't keep its head above the water.

[VileReynard]

If you were to ask most people whether they would prefer ipv4 or ipv6,
I suspect they would simply ask which is best for them.
What are most people using?
IPV4 - well I'd like some of that then.  :D
If you provide a hack of CG-NAT for ipv4, you will never get a full ipv6 roll-out.

[jelv]

If Plusnet and other ISPs DON'T implement CG-NAT there will come a point where the ISPs will not be able to take on new users because they have no IP addresses spare.

[MJN]

Indeed, it's something of a necessary evil given the position we're in today. But, that said, I don't see it as a threat to IPv6 deployment. I don't believe it to be a case of either-or.
Normal users do care about what protocol is offered to them, albeit indirectly and without them realising it. All they want to do is use $LATEST_APP and play $LATEST_APP. If they don't run over CG-NAT they'll be wanting IPv6. Of course, they might not be asking for it by name but they'll be asking for it indirectly capability. So when they phone up their ISP complaining that $LATEST_APP doesn't work, yet it does on their mates ISP (who perhaps unbeknown to them supports IPv6), they'll not be too please to hear that it can't be used on their current ISP and they'll jump ship.
Again, CG-NAT is a necessary evil and is bad for everyone. It's not good for the user if their $LATEST_GAME doesn't work over it, and it's not good for the ISP either. There's a cost involved to provide it - not only for the kit but also the user support e.g. trying to explain to users why it's so difficult to get $LATEST_APP to work properly.
This critical mass does of course require the IPv6 'killer app' which we haven't quite got yet but it could be just around the corner as, like with any technology, the more its used the more benefit is realised and demanded from it.

[VileReynard]

If (or rather when) the "ISP" screws up my bank details because they are cleverly using the the same IPV4
addresses simultaneously for several customers via CG-NAT then they will have discovered their killer-app.
It's not like losing a few email addresses.  :D