IPv6 support on Virgin media

[dgcarter]

Does anyone know whether (and if so when) Virgin plan to implement IPv6 on its network?

[Dagger2]

---

@VMCopperUser wrote:

What he is saying is the ISP may issue /120 blocks to everyone giving an effective 256 IP's per customer.  So when you have say 40 devices connected, and someone is packet flooding one of your unused IP's then will VM charge you for that packet flooding.  At least, I think that is what he is saying.  

---

Right, that's mostly what I got too. What I don't understand is how it's an IPv6 problem. You could make the same argument on v4, with somebody DDOSing you on an unused port instead of an unused IP. Either way a DDOS would be bad, but it's not an IPv6-specific bad and I don't see why it would be brought up as a potential problem that needs worrying about with v6. If you were going to worry about it, then you should already be worrying about it now.

---

@VMCopperUser wrote:

He said behind the same NAT, Not (kinda not) on the same IP.

I have ran multiple DNS servers in the past (when playing with routing tables and getting smart TV's to view American, Canadaian, and UK content all at the same time). 

Because it's behind the NAT then it is forcefully the "same IP" but eh.

---

Ah, ok, let's clarify just in case. I meant a situation where

1. Your ISP only gives you one IP.
2. You have 20 machines, so you use NAT.
3. You have DNS servers running on two of those machines.
4. Both of the DNS servers need to be accessible from the internet.

... which you can't do. (This is not a contrived situation, I hit it myself trying to get iodine running.) To get it to work, you need another IP, but that's not doable with v4 (particularly in the long run) because there just aren't enough.

[craigj2k11]

---

@Dagger2 wrote:

---

@craigj2k11 wrote:

The reason matters becuase it wouldnt be done, you would have an IP address for each DNS server.

---

Well... yes, that's what you'd do. That's been my point this whole time: we need IPv6, because there isn't enough space to do that in IPv4. (Although I don't understand why you would bother NATing; if you have IPs for the servers then just assign the IPs to the servers. No need to make your life more complicated that it already is.)

---

Of course there is enough space, how do you think you are accessing the internet at this very moment

---

@Dagger2 wrote:

---

@craigj2k11 wrote:

The reason matters becuase it wouldnt be done, you would have an IP address for each DNS server.

---

But Nutty667 suggested I can simply do some port forwarding and be happy. I asked my question in an attempt to point out that it just can't be done in this situation, which means that NATs are not sufficient as a solution.

---

in what situation? I dont see what it is that you "cant" do?

---

@Dagger2 wrote:

---

@craigj2k11 wrote:

The reason matters becuase it wouldnt be done, you would have an IP address for each DNS server.

---

There's also the unaddressed issue of what will happen when VM end up with more customers than IPs. At that point, they'll be forced to do NAT themselves. How would you configure port forwards when the NAT isn't run by you and is completely out of your control?

---

As I pointed out a couple of pages back, this isnt going to happen any time soon. But if you want to write a letter to my boss as to why he should spend ~£650k adopting IPv6 then be my guest, it was an issue brought up in a meeting a while back, and I couldnt justify why we would need IPv6. Apart from future proofing, there is absolutely no reason for companies to shell out the massive expense of adopting IPv6

[craigj2k11]

---

@legacy1 wrote:

---

@Dagger2 wrote:

---

@legacy1 wrote:

Their is a difference to a DDOS being aimed to a IPv6 address your using then a IPv6 address that’s allocated to you but not in use and still receives incoming traffic even with no reply from the gateway.

---

It's still traffic either way. What's the difference?

---

The difference is Docsis in the downstream is a broadcast with per key encryption for traffic to a given modem and that the downstream bandwidth is limited and shared so if the gateway knows a IPv6 WAN address is not in use much like if a IPv4 WAN address is not in use then the gateway does not have to send the traffic but if the gateway knows a IPv6 WAN address is in use much like if a IPv4 WAN address is in use then it has to send the traffic regardless because you wouldn’t have internet other wise.

---

AFAIK most of VMs kit is already IPv6 compatible, even the (not so) superhub. The only issue would be migrating users to DOCSIS3, and supplying new CPEs to thousands of users. Im not entirely sure if the VMNG300 is IPv6 ready, but that would probably be solved with a firmware update

[craigj2k11]

---

@Dagger2 wrote:

---

@VMCopperUser wrote:

What he is saying is the ISP may issue /120 blocks to everyone giving an effective 256 IP's per customer.  So when you have say 40 devices connected, and someone is packet flooding one of your unused IP's then will VM charge you for that packet flooding.  At least, I think that is what he is saying.  

---

Right, that's mostly what I got too. What I don't understand is how it's an IPv6 problem. You could make the same argument on v4, with somebody DDOSing you on an unused port instead of an unused IP. Either way a DDOS would be bad, but it's not an IPv6-specific bad and I don't see why it would be brought up as a potential problem that needs worrying about with v6. If you were going to worry about it, then you should already be worrying about it now.

---

@VMCopperUser wrote:

He said behind the same NAT, Not (kinda not) on the same IP.

I have ran multiple DNS servers in the past (when playing with routing tables and getting smart TV's to view American, Canadaian, and UK content all at the same time). 

Because it's behind the NAT then it is forcefully the "same IP" but eh.

---

Ah, ok, let's clarify just in case. I meant a situation where

1. Your ISP only gives you one IP.
2. You have 20 machines, so you use NAT.
3. You have DNS servers running on two of those machines.
4. Both of the DNS servers need to be accessible from the internet.

... which you can't do. (This is not a contrived situation, I hit it myself trying to get iodine running.) To get it to work, you need another IP, but that's not doable with v4 (particularly in the long run) because there just aren't enough.

---

Well at the moment, ther is enough, but if it was that much of a major issue why not just load balance between the 2 DNS servers using the same external IP?

[Jason_G]

Hi all,

In case you weren't aware, our Head of Broadband Experience posted in this thread about IPv6 a couple of months ago. We are planning for IPv6 but the implimentation is not imminent as we currently have sufficient IPv4 addresses for the near/mid-term future.

[VMCopperUser]

---

@Jason_G wrote:

Hi all,

In case you weren't aware, our Head of Broadband Experience posted in this thread about IPv6 a couple of months ago. We are planning for IPv6 but the implimentation is not imminent as we currently have sufficient IPv4 addresses for the near/mid-term future.

---

As much as statements by Alex can make me cringe , your statement makes me cringe worse ;P..

We are not worried about VM running out of IPV4 addys. 

The idea that your just going to wait until IPv4 runs out and then magically switch it on all over the country all at one time and hope it fixes everything is madness.

Adding network support now, letting users slowly move into it now, and giving tech staff a chance to see how it works now means that when that switchover day comes It'll just be another day.

I put petrol in my car before it runs out, but hey, I guess that's just me.

[Jason_G]

Hi VMCopperUser,

Although the rollout isn't imminent, we are planning for it as I stated. It is a major change so the better we can plan, the better ready we'll be when the time comes to to start the switchover. I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's better to take time to be prepared and get this right than it would be to rush this.

...and I can see you cringing from here so I'll shut up now. 😉

[VMCopperUser]

---

@Jason_G wrote:

Hi VMCopperUser,

Although the rollout isn't imminent, we are planning for it as I stated. It is a major change so the better we can plan, the better ready we'll be when the time comes to to start the switchover. I'm sure you'll appreciate that it's better to take time to be prepared and get this right than it would be to rush this.

...and I can see you cringing from here so I'll shut up now. 😉

---

No, that's not a cringing reply..

Saying you need to wait for the company to be exausted of IPv4 before using IPv6 is (and your not the only VM Bod to say it)..

Yes it is a major change, but planning and doing are two different things.  Keep in mind that "Faster Uploads" was started over 2 years ago and still has not been completed, Before that could be started it required a lot of "planning" and "thinking" and all of that jazz.  Still to this day we get users turning up with old SB modems and some staff even saying "That is not a modem that we have ever used on our network"..  Tech's dont remember about old modems, they dont know anything about "Webwise", and they dont know anything about "Faster Uploads"..  While I am sure all of that stuff has been "planned" well it seems like the people who plan it end up leaving before it ever gets deployed and then the new people just end up saying "what? what?"...

Perhaps I am just waiting for an answer that will placate me, something like "we are rolling it out on all of our gear, but waiting on end user deployment" or "we have it ready now but are spending time training staff and troubleshooting issues that can happen". 

With VM now deplying "free" wifi that could result in their IP usage going up by 600%.  I havent counted how many Ipv4 addys there are in total assigned to VM but my guess is that this free wifi network is going to use carrier grade NAT to avoid running out.

My fear is that You will wait, You will say "wow that happened fast and we are not ready" and then you'll end up saying "In the interim we will use carrier grade Nat and everyone will be happy!"...

but shrug, perhaps I am just a sourpuss...

While the talk about not doing it makes me upset, non-logical reasoning for not doing it makes me cringe.

[Dagger2]

---

@craigj2k11 wrote:

Of course there is enough space, how do you think you are accessing the internet at this very moment

---

There isn't. My ISP doesn't have enough IP space to even give everybody a second IP, let alone enough of them. I, like everybody else, am working around it with NAT, but that has a couple of problems such as... well, the laundry list I gave in my post above.

---

@craigj2k11 wrote:

But if you want to write a letter to my boss as to why he should spend ~£650k adopting IPv6 then be my guest, it was an issue brought up in a meeting a while back, and I couldnt justify why we would need IPv6.

---

How much will it cost to not adopt v6? e.g. how much money do you pay to struggle with NAT each year? The more v6 you use, the fewer headaches you'll get from v4.

And at some point in the future, you're going to discover that you do need IPv6. Maybe one of the companies you do business with will require it, or whatever. Then you're going to need to learn everything you need to know, and plan and deploy it, in a time-critical rush. It'll be cheaper to do a slower, carefully-planned rollout ahead of time, before it becomes urgent.

Saving money now in exchange for spending more money later is not always a great way to save money.

---

@craigj2k11 wrote:

but if it was that much of a major issue why not just load balance between the 2 DNS servers using the same external IP?

---

...because I wanted the servers to actually work? Having the packets go to the wrong server half the time would break both of them.

---

@VMCopperUser wrote:

No, that's not a cringing reply..

Saying you need to wait for the company to be exausted of IPv4 before using IPv6 is (and your not the only VM Bod to say it)..

[...] While the talk about not doing it makes me upset, non-logical reasoning for not doing it makes me cringe.

---

Yes, very much this. You can claim that you have enough IPs to give 1 to every customer, and that's indeed true, but a) most of your customers will need to use NAT, which has a big list of problems that I've already given in this thread and is thus preferably avoided, and b) the v4 is useless for reaching other people's v6 sites/services. We keep seeing forum reps claim that "we have enough v4 so we don't need v6 yet", but that's wrong. Worse, from where I'm looking, the entire of VM seems to share that stance, and it worries me.

---

@VMCopperUser wrote:

Perhaps I am just waiting for an answer that will placate me, something like "we are rolling it out on all of our gear, but waiting on end user deployment" or "we have it ready now but are spending time training staff and troubleshooting issues that can happen"

---

Or just any movement at all. They got 2a02:8800::/24 almost two years ago, but the block is not even announced yet (meaning VM have no v6 peers and can't send/receive any traffic from the block -- basically they got it and then forgot about it). Getting that block announced and a 6rd server up for initial testing and experience would be great, and wouldn't require a massive country-wide rollout, or even much planning, to do.

[Morgaine]

Jason_G writes (quoting management):
> We are planning for IPv6 but the implimentation is not imminent as we
> currently have sufficient IPv4 addresses for the near/mid-term future.

There may be a fundamental misconception here among VM management.  We don't want IPv6 because VirginMedia is running out of IPv4 addresses (it's not).  We want it because a small but ever-increasing proportion of the Internet is on IPv6, and we want to see those new sites.  Many parts of the world ran out of IPv4 space long ago, so their new deployments are now on IPv6.  As VM users, we don't want to see only the IPv4 portion, despite it being the largest, we want to see everything.

If VM management thinks this is about "VM running out of IPv4 addresses" then they totally fail to comprehend the driving force.  Your *customers* need IPv6, even if you don't.  And when you don't provide IPv6 then you are excluding your customers from the portion of the Internet that uses what is officially the current version of the protocol.  IPv4 is officially the *previous* version.

We techies know how to overcome the lack of IPv6 on VM using tunnels to IPv6 brokers of course, but what about our non-tech families and friends who are using VirginMedia?  Non-techies like them don't have a hope of seeing the IPv6 Internet until you provide it out of the box.  It's in your hands.

Jason, please communicate upstream to management that this has nothing to do with VM running out of IPv4 addresses.  It has to do with your customers wanting to see the whole Internet, not just the old one.

Morgaine.