Virgin Media Community

[legacy1]

Given the choice would you have one IPv4 fully or IPv4 NAT (shared) with IPv6 and a subnet.

IPv6 is just not a needed thing if a bank or game was to go IPv6 only then the roll out will happen.

I know of a way to double the current IPv4 (one IP shared by two) at the ISP end by MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict that allows port/protocol forwarding because not everyone needs incoming so its likely that will happen first before IPv6 I think.

[VMCopperUser]

---

@legacy1 wrote:

Given the choice would you have one IPv4 fully or IPv4 NAT (shared) with IPv6 and a subnet.

IPv6 is just not a needed thing if a bank or game was to go IPv6 only then the roll out will happen.

I know of a way to double the current IPv4 (one IP shared by two) at the ISP end by MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict that allows port/protocol forwarding because not everyone needs incoming so its likely that will happen first before IPv6 I think.

---

Xbox Live is IPv6 driven, since about 2013!

IPv6 is not needed as long as

A) Customers are happy being CGNAT and

B) Customers don't care about any new products or companies launching.

What you will see is that as new businesses launch from this point forward, there will be a delay before they get a lot of IPv4 addresses.  Now, hosting providers have a lot of nifty ways of of getting the most out of a single IP, but it is going to be an issue for them.  Not for the older internet players, but the new ones will struggle.

And I agree that there could be a fancy solution that allows automatic forwarding using something similar to UPnP to work with CGNat.  That would be a complicated solution that would require something I haven't ever seen published.  Why spend a lot of time and money doing that when there is a solution.  IPv6...

[ravenstar68]

With regard to CGNAT

Some of the companies that have now gone fully IPv6 looked at CGNAT solutions prior to implementing v6.  They found it caused more problems than it solved, which is why they decided to roll out v6.

With regard to XBox Live

While it's true that they've been touting how they use IPv6 addresses to improve the multiplayer experience since 2013 - It's actually a weird state of offairs with them.  Their IPv6 currently still relies on Teredo - in fact if you are on a native v6 connection and you disable Teredo - you get the lovely message:

Note:  I'm at my parents in Inverness and using their BT connection, which is dual stacked.

If I turn Teredo back on

So ironically the IPv6 element of XBox live STILL relies on IPv4! 🤣 In fact if you are behind CGNAT then you get issues.

With regard to content providers:

Netflix has been dual stacked for some time now.
Facebook has been dual stacked for a number of years.
Google and hence Youtube has also been dual stacked.

Amazon is still IPv4 only, and if you dig microsoft.com you still only get v4 addresses.

Tim

[legacy1]

"And I agree that there could be a fancy solution that allows automatic forwarding using something similar to UPnP to work with CGNat.  That would be a complicated solution that would require something I haven't ever seen published.  Why spend a lot of time and money doing that when there is a solution.  IPv6..."

Well someone did IP6to4 mess and lets not for get that someone did NAT so why not solution for one IP shared by two each get the WAN IP and a ISP router with MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict to allow incoming. Also my solution does not use UPnP or anything the user needs to do. 

[VMCopperUser]

---

@legacy1 wrote:

Well someone did IP6to4 mess and lets not for get that someone did NAT so why not solution for one IP shared by two each get the WAN IP and a ISP router with MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict to allow incoming. Also my solution does not use UPnP or anything the user needs to do. 

---

Tunnels are not a mess at all, your using them every day and dont even know it.  Heck, that's even my argument for us having Dual-Stack, with 4over6 then it means virgin don't need nearly any IPv4's for use on their network other than what they need to dish out to customers.

NAT is about 25 years old now, about 19 years refined, and look at how poorly it still works at times.  And UPnP would be the go to for such a solution that you describe.  It's doable, but it would be a unique solution that VM does not have the technical ability to design, test, or implement.  For what they would spend on designing such a solution, they could probably deploy full-stack and purchase extra ip addresses if they are just that short.  Overly complicated temporary fixes like you describe need to be removed from the equation.

In regards to the Xbox not connecting directly with IPv6, that seems odd as Microsoft says it should work!  Perhaps when the device has a reachable IPv4 it's connected through then it defaults to that?.  I know a lot of things "Default" to IPv4 when both exist.  Not able to test this atm.

[jem101]

As I understand the Xbox situation, since native IPv6 connections make up only a small proportion of global domestic connections, the Xbox needs to use teredo tunnelling for multiplayer games (Xbox live), otherwise it would find itself cut off from the vast majority of other players.

[Martin_D]

Will 2020 be the year for IPv6 on Virgin Media

[VMCopperUser]

---

@Martin_D wrote:
Will 2020 be the year for IPv6 on Virgin Media

---

Their whole inner network is IPv6 now.

I bet the answer is ... No ...

But they have said that they are looking to start rolling the TG3492LG-VMB to non Gig customers.  So perhaps they are waiting for everyone to get a Hub4?

Their Migration teams in the past seem to miss a ton of people, so lets hope that's not what they are waiting for.

[shanematthews]

If they were waiting for everyone to get a hub4 then you're looking at a lot longer than a year, they have literally millions of customers and some of them will still be rocking things like hub2's without any issues, if i were still on a residential service with VM i would have stuck with the hub2 myself, so yeah that isn't going to be what they were waiting for and as far as i know the older hubs "can" do v6 anyway there just isn't really any point at this time, there is still no requirement for v6 to be rolled out as its only the smaller companies that are affected by the v4 shortage, the big names still work on v4 just fine

[Timwilky]

Crazy really, All VM had to do was admit CGNAT was not fit for purpose and provide a full dual stack. They could have done this years ago, but priority has been headline speeds rather than future proofing their network.

Leaving IPv6 on the back burner means that once they really have to make the jump to retain connectivity with the rest of the world, they will again be looking for the quick fix for legacy connectivity and argue it no longer is an issue as everyone now uses IPv6!