IPv6 support on Virgin media
Does anyone know whether (and if so when) Virgin plan to implement IPv6 on its network?
Forum Discussion
1,493 Replies
Replies have been turned off for this discussion
Something more recent on the whole 6in4 speed issues saga, more recently there are reports in the Czech Republic that a similar issue is occurring on the UPC/Vodafone network, which Liberty Global have some hand in.
https://www.root.cz/clanky/pomale-ipv6-tunely-s-modemem-compal-od-upc-vodafone/nazory/ (In CZ, will need to be translated)
https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/hg4jn9/compal_ch7465lg_and_hurricane_electric_6to4/
It references an article I wrote about this specific issue, but interesting that this is also happening elsewhere, not just Virgin Media UK.
Looks like Vodafone has switched on dual-stack IPv6 for gigafast (FTTH) customers. Support confirmed the IPv6 availability for gigafast plans.
That's good news.
They seem to have several ASNs. I can't see any ipv6 activity on their busiest one, but I guess that's their mobile customers rather than FTTH. https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS5378 https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS25135
There is however some good growth on AS3209: VODANET International IP-Backbone of Vodafone, Germany (DE). https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS3209
The UK IPv6 Council tweeted a link to an interesting presentation from Google: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2020-v6ops-01/slides/slides-interim-2020-v6ops-01-sessa-the-day-i-broke-all-the-treadmills-google-ipv6-only-deployment-00
To summarise: They have successfully switched the guest wifi networks in most of their offices to IPv6-only! There is a self-service way to opt-in to dual stack, but fewer than 15% of users have taken that option, meaning 85% are using IPv6 only.
I wonder if this approach could finally give ISPs an incentive to move to IPv6. The biggest reason to switch is the lack of IPv4 addresses, but adding v6 support doesn't immediately help that. Either you go dual stack, which needs the same number of v4 addresses as v4-only, or you go DS-Lite, which is just the same as CG-NAT on a v4-only network.
If it's actually practical for a significant proportion of users to switch to v6-only then that would hugely relieve the pressure on v4 addresses. They could sell off a bunch to pay for the network upgrade, and still have plenty to give out to anyone who asks for one.
2 problems with that
1) They're running NAT64 which is basically another form of carrier grade NAT (so no different to DS-Lite)
2) This is a guest network for a corporate environment, so no one is going to be running servers on it or other things that you'd typically do on a home network, and people are going to be using relatively new and updated devices... And they still only got to 85%. Good luck convincing VM to implement something that will cause at least 900,000 customers to need to contact support!
When they get round to it, I'd bet on them offering DS-Lite to all, and then a real IPv4 address for a monthly extra. They win both ways then. Majority of customers are happy, minority of customers pay a bit more to do whatever they want a public address for, and they sell the majority of their addresses.
Yeah, I guess it is just CG-NAT but at the other side of the network.
The key thing for me is having an easy option to switch to full DS. Lots of people will be fine with CG-NAT, so give those people a DS-lite solution and save the IPs for users who actually need their own.
thelem wrote:I wonder if this approach could finally give ISPs an incentive to move to IPv6. The biggest reason to switch is the lack of IPv4 addresses, but adding v6 support doesn't immediately help that. Either you go dual stack, which needs the same number of v4 addresses as v4-only, or you go DS-Lite, which is just the same as CG-NAT on a v4-only network.
Stop saying that, IPv4 address pool is not a reason, IPv6 and IPv4 are incompatible, by adding IPv6 you won't solve IPv4 address shortage issue, you will do CG-NAT for v4, you can do JUST NAT for v4 without even adding IPv6, most of the users won't notice, most of the mobile providers do that for years (even never had white IPs for clients), and people do not complain that their phone behind NAT. IPv6 solves NAT issues! a lot of things would be much simpler and cheaper if they use IPv6 only, but because of companies like VM, the engineers have jump over hoops to make their product work for IPv4-only customers behind NAT.
Incentives for ISPs to move, simple, if Ofcom says: you can't advertise your service as broadband without IPv6 support, they all will move within a month.> simple, if Ofcom says: you can't advertise your service as broadband without IPv6 support, they all will move within a month.
Remember when Europol started whining about the extensive use of CG-NAT in 2017, because CRIMINALS! Didn't really change much, and you'd think Europol have a bit more weight than Ofcom. Personally, that's just a cover for lazy investigating, because ISPs know which subscriber is doing what behind a NAT device, Europol, would actually need to following the law and get a court order, you know, like you should be doing.
The Ofcom theory does highlight a good point though, if there was a compelling reason, or killer app on IPv6 only, then you'd get movement in no time. There just isn't a strong enough push or incentive. That's what IPv6 could have done with early on. Something that can't work on IPv4 but will on IPv6 that would be relevant to non technical people, but everything works on IPv4, whether you like NAT or not, so no opportunistic incentive there.
We all know IPv6 is the future, most of the world doesn't or care and that is the customer base such products are mainly designed for.
Excuse my ignorance in all this, but if I remember correctly VM Ireland has a lot of requests to be put on IPv4 only, and I think the main driver is for gaming.
Now if this is correct and VM UK move to DS-Lite, can VM still advertise as "great for gaming" ?
- VM is generally regarded as not great for gaming.
DSL remains the preferred choice for serious gamers. It is a very good point. I wondered the same, because good luck having that NAT type as Open under DS Lite with IPv4 being a CG-NAT gateway. Most games are all IPv4 only so modem mode is going to be only solution there.
Even though VM did loads of marketing around being for gamers, the latency issues will have made people wary and staying away.
Adduxi wrote:Excuse my ignorance in all this, but if I remember correctly VM Ireland has a lot of requests to be put on IPv4 only, and I think the main driver is for gaming.
Now if this is correct and VM UK move to DS-Lite, can VM still advertise as "great for gaming" ?
Latency is the key to gaming, so xDSL tends to be better.
Users who need to host end to end connections over different ISP's might need IPv4 to connect, but that's due to other ISP users not having v6. For those users who "need" their own IPv4 then Dual-Stack is the actual product they should get. I too "need" IPv4 because of my SIP phones, but that doesn't mean I don't want IPv6 to roll out. There are two issues at play, the lack of deployment of IPv6 and CGNAT, but they are lobbed together as a single problem and VM seem unwilling to roll it out. If they really want to roll out CGNAT then they should run a large test area, the complains they get back would likely show them why it's a horrible idea. Sadly they would likely view that as a failure for IPv6 deployment and not a failure of CGNAT.
Looks like Virgin are finally looking into the IPv6 tunnelling issues:
Here's my situation as of this morning:
IPV4 196 Mb/s
IPV6 72.5 Mb/s
I've only just set the tunnel up so I can't compare it with previous days.
72.5 is pretty good by current standards,
What tunnel provider and endpoint?
What kind of VM modem/router do you have?
Are you running it in modem mode?
Interesting we are seeing pockets of increase speeds in some cases, for myself I figured out getting iperf3 to work properly with multi WANs so it's actually testing the right WAN.
I see no change in my case currently.
6in4 IPv6
root@linksys-wrt3200acm:~# iperf3 -6 -c bouygues.iperf.fr -R Connecting to host bouygues.iperf.fr, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host bouygues.iperf.fr is sending [ 5] local 2001:470:xxxx:xx::x port 53684 connected to 2001:860:deff:1000::2 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.09 MBytes 9.15 Mbits/sec [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.64 MBytes 13.8 Mbits/sec [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.55 MBytes 13.0 Mbits/sec [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.84 MBytes 15.4 Mbits/sec [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.64 MBytes 13.7 Mbits/sec [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.93 MBytes 16.2 Mbits/sec [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.52 MBytes 12.7 Mbits/sec [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.83 MBytes 15.4 Mbits/sec [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.42 MBytes 12.0 Mbits/sec [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.90 MBytes 15.9 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.06 sec 17.3 MBytes 14.5 Mbits/sec 13 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 16.4 MBytes 13.7 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.
Wireguard IPv6root@linksys-wrt3200acm:~# iperf3 -B fc00:bbbb:bbbb:bb01::1:611c -c bouygues.iperf.fr -R Connecting to host bouygues.iperf.fr, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host bouygues.iperf.fr is sending [ 5] local fc00:bbbb:bbbb:bb01::1:611c port 46811 connected to 2001:860:deff:1000::2 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 9.18 MBytes 77.0 Mbits/sec [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 10.4 MBytes 87.2 Mbits/sec [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 10.8 MBytes 90.8 Mbits/sec [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 4.23 MBytes 35.5 Mbits/sec [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 8.52 MBytes 71.5 Mbits/sec [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 9.15 MBytes 76.8 Mbits/sec [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 9.62 MBytes 80.7 Mbits/sec [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 9.84 MBytes 82.5 Mbits/sec [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 9.72 MBytes 81.5 Mbits/sec [ 5] 9.00-10.00 sec 9.70 MBytes 81.4 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr [ 5] 0.00-10.06 sec 95.6 MBytes 79.8 Mbits/sec 819 sender [ 5] 0.00-10.00 sec 91.2 MBytes 76.5 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.Maybe we need to start trying to see if routing is anything to do with it, this is my HE tunnel endpoint and the path.
root@linksys-wrt3200acm:~# traceroute 216.66.80.26 -w 1 traceroute to 216.66.80.26 (216.66.80.26), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 * * * 2 nott-core-2b-xe-913-0.network.virginmedia.net (62.255.229.77) 8.871 ms 9.960 ms 8.980 ms 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 m686-mp2.cvx1-b.lis.dial.ntli.net (62.254.42.174) 19.848 ms 21.557 ms 39.957 ms 7 10ge2-4.core1.lon2.he.net (216.66.80.117) 19.042 ms 24.215 ms 17.824 ms 8 tserv1.lon1.he.net (216.66.80.26) 19.877 ms 20.750 ms 18.058 msI guess a lot of us are using Hurricane Electric, I know there is also tunnelbroker.ch, as well.
Mark at ISP Review asked for an update on the tunnelling issue and was told they're still working on it.
Their response includes the statement "We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment" which is promising. We'll see how long that process takes.
Maybe kind of encouraging; let us see...
thelem wrote:Mark at ISP Review asked for an update on the tunnelling issue and was told they're still working on it.
Their response includes the statement "We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment" which is promising.
Were you expecting them to say: "We are an incompetent bunch, sorry but this will never be fixed, or IPv6 ever implemented, stay with us!".? VM Spokesman is getting their salary not for telling the truth, but getting out of such questions with less reputational damages.
They could have replied to say they don't have an update at this time.
The question was about 6in4 tunneling, so they didn't even need to mention full IPv6 rollout.
Their response includes the statement "We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment" which is promising."
Really, "promising" ?! Haven't they been promising IPv6 for, um, ten years or so now? And, weasel-words wise, those plans that are being "finalised" could be: "to sit on their hands for another ten years"...!
Yea, I can imagine them in the meeting.
"Should we use this internet 6 thing?"
"I hear it's 1000 times bigger than the internet 4 thing!"
"Wow, sounds great, let's tell people we will do it, and since it's 1000 times larger we can delay deployment for 10 or 20 years, they will never know our internet is not that big."
"Ok, good job guys, let's file for our bonuses now since we are going to be 1000 times bigger."
"Done, meet again in 12 months so we can talk more."
No good way to write, 2^96, so I used 1000.
No good way to write, 2^96, ....
How about: 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ?
Hi dgcarter,
Thank you for getting in touch. I'm afraid we don't have any information we can share regarding the implementation of IPv6 on our network at the moment.
We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment and will provide an update at the appropriate time.
Thanks,
Rachael
Rachael_F wrote:We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment and will provide an update at the appropriate time.
LOL. I've been a VM customer for 20 years as of last week. This thread on getting IPv6 support has been going for virtually half of the time I have been a customer. The message from on high has been the same for virtually all of those years. Ridiculous doesn't really cover it.
Rachael_F wrote:Hi dgcarter,
Thank you for getting in touch. I'm afraid we don't have any information we can share regarding the implementation of IPv6 on our network at the moment.
We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment and will provide an update at the appropriate time.
Thanks,
Rachael
Um, Rachael - if you take a hour (or two) to read the hundreds of pages of messages in this thread that has been running for over TEN (yes, over 3,653 days) - you might realise that Virgin have been telling us they are finalising their plans (or at least saying that they are) for a technology that is already twenty years old for a very long time. I might venture to suggest that the appropriate time for an update was some years ago...
Rachael_F wrote:Hi dgcarter,
Thank you for getting in touch. I'm afraid we don't have any information we can share regarding the implementation of IPv6 on our network at the moment.
We’re in the process of finalising our plans for IPv6 deployment and will provide an update at the appropriate time.
Dear Rachael, I regret to inform you that dgcarter waited for your answer for more than 7 years and lost hope 3 years ago, as result they left VM and this forum.
PS. The "competence" of the VM staff as it is
The forum popped up one of those Customer Survey boxes that we get here from time to time, and after the recent completely uninformative "response" that we received from Virgin staff, I thought to myself, "Aha, the perfect time to provide customer survey feedback about the lack of IPv6". Well, 5 attempts later, I now realize that their survey techies can't even handle plain text in an input box, so I might as well post it here as part of the community thread instead: [contains no personal info]
It is 2021, almost a decade since the World IPv6 Day in 2011 and the World IPv6 Launch day in the following year, yet you still do not provide up-to-date networking, only IPv4.
Alone among the three major UK ISPs, Virgin Media has completely ignored the requests of its technically knowledgeable customers for IPv6, expressed in both its community forum and in customer surveys like this one.
This is a total failure by Virgin to keep up with modern IP provisioning, and post-Brexit, it is also a failure that harms our ability to compete with the EU and to be a leader in networking.
In past surveys, the value I assigned for "Would you recommend Virgin Media to others?" was less than 50% owing to lack of IPv6. Well perhaps VM is lucky that their survey crashed 5 times, because this time I was intending to assign a mark of zero.I think my main feeling is one of sadness, sadness that a major UK ISP can be so out of date in networking technology, so self-centered that it rejects informed dialogue with its community, so hostile to its customers' requirements that it thinks silence is an adequate response, and so uncaring of the future of the UK in worldwide networking. As a company, Virgin Media doesn't meet even the most basic requirements of professional quality management.
Fortunately we won't be stuck with Virgin's incompetence as an ISP for long. Starlink is already serving beta customers in the UK, and will offer IPv6 upon release (it's already working in beta). And other competing services are coming as well.
Morgaine.ha! I've complained about ipv6 in a dozen or more of those feedback things over years. never got the impression it makes any difference sadly..
Would it be shocking if they only read the ones where people give it all 5's and say "I Love the fact that we don't have IPv6"? Then giving those to senior managers and saying "See, Community Support!".
I wouldn't.
Just on the off chance, I ran another test with my HE IPv6 tunnel:
Not sure how this fits with some catastrophic hardware issue in the SH3...
Andy
