IPv6 support on Virgin media

[dgcarter]

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

[Timwilky]

Why do you think IPv6 is of no benefit? so all of us asking for it, running tunnels etc have no need!

The world has run out of IPv4. IOT has taken over, we no longer have a single device in the home. cell phones, tablets, laptops in every bedroom, smart devices and TVs. Cameras, VoIP etc. All need to communicate.

NAT and port forwarding is unmanageble. IPv6 is the answer. Just VM/LG haven't got into the 21 century yet.

[jamesmacwhite]

A good time to remember a great story by El Reg, about what Virgin Media thought about IPv6 over three years ago when one customer ranted about it.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/virgin_media_no_ipv6/

Their position is mostly unchanged today! In short, we are the nerds, VM doesn't see the demand, notice how zero official VM staff have replied on this thread for years, we're probably a nuisance to them at this point

[ksim]

---

@jamesmacwhite wrote:

 In short, we are the nerds,

as it something bad, without us "nerds", the rest would be queueing in a postoffice now.

VM doesn't see the demand,

and will never see, because I am busting my ass that IPv4-only customers have full access services my company is providing and have the same experience, even more I have to sacrifice usability and cost-effectiveness because of that.

notice how zero official VM staff have replied on this thread for years,

like it something bad, every time they open their mouths we hear something ridiculously stupid things.

we're probably a nuisance to them at this point

everything beyond rebooting a router is a nuisance for them.

Let's just accept a few things:

1.  IPv6 transition is unavoidable, you have to do it, or just die.
2. There is no reason to delay transition if you can do it now, that won't save you money or anything, just creates more pressure from "nerds" and social media
3. Shortage of IPv4 is not relevant to IPv6 (explained billion times)
4. Moving to IPv6 benefits your internal infrastructure (if you worked with networks it is clear) and your support (no more NAT issues)

To summarise, VM just incompetent to do IPv6 transition.

---

[jamesmacwhite]

I don't disagree. Here's one to add:

If they won't deploy IPv6 anytime soon, please stop messing with protocol 41, so tunnel users will be less likely to be angry at "when IPv6?" is still asked in 2050.

[newapollo]

Looks like very few major ISP's are using IPv6 in the UK https://ipv6-test.com/stats/country/GB

[philjohn]

BT and Sky are two of the majors who both support it - both using proper full-fat Dual-Stack as well.

[thelem]

The major UK fixed line home ISPs are

1. Sky - IPv6 in use by >90% of subscribers
2. Virgin - No IPv6
3. BT - IPv6 in use by >65% of subscribers. It's not supported by their older hubs, but these are gradually being removed as customers churn and hardware fails. I imagine if lack of IPv6 is a problem for a particular customer then they would send them a new hub.
4. TalkTalk - No IPv6
5. PlusNet - No IPv6

The mobile providers:

1. EE - IPv6 in use
2. Vodafone - No IPv6
3. O2 - No IPv6
4. Three - IPv6 rollout in progress

These ISPs serve the majority of UK domestic internet traffic. If you ignore PlusNet (by far the smallest) then half of the UKs major providers have IPv6 support. We need them all to support IPv6 before services can start to rely on IPv6.

https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/GB

[Adduxi]

---

@Timwilky wrote:

<snip>

NAT and port forwarding is unmanageable. IPv6 is the answer. Just VM/LG haven't got into the 21 century yet.

---

VM/LG are doing IPv6 in Ireland, but in such as way that it alienates all the Gamers. They have to ask to be "downgraded" to IPv4 so they can port forward for games.  I don't know the technicalities of how they do IPv6, but it must be completely different from BT.  As a BT and VM user I have no such problems with the BT version of IPv6, it just works and I don't have to port forward for any gaming.

[Timwilky]

The way BT/sky do it (I am not a customer so may be wrong) is to impliment full dual stack. LG/VM want to use an infeerior solution of DS lite meaning IPv4 is on CGNAT. a useless half baked solution that fails to provide bi directional IPv4.

One day the world will be fully IPv6. But until that day, you cannot remove IPv4. So full dual stack is the only acceptable migration solution.

[jeallen01]

Interesting thread of which I have only just become aware as a simple end-user with what looked like a "simple" problem to solve, i.e. my new LG "smart" (or maybe not!) TV looks for an IPv6 DNS server address (with no alternative IPv4 option) when it tries to connect to my local Cat 5E LAN, which is connected to the incoming VM coax connection via my ASUS RT-AC66 B1 router and a SuperHub 2 in modem mode - but then refuses to connect to "anything"!

Therefore I was simply searching for an appropriate IPv6 address to manually enter into the TV's ethernet connection menu, but it would appear that this is currently "unobtainable"! (OTOH, the wireless connection from the same TV appears to work fine - and thus why????)

So, am I correct in "guessing" that the Cat 5E connection won't work UNTIL VM does bring in genuine IPv6 DNS address connections - and thus my TV will have to contiue to be connected via WiFi?

And thus is VM going to keep refusing to acknowledge that current consumer-end technology is not always backwards compatible with their existing IPv4 network technology and thus we will be saddled with that situation "ad infinitum"?

PS: please don't suggest VPN & tunneling approaches because, frankly, I have enough other issues to deal with and one more "complication" (however well it might work if sorted) would be an unwelcome addition for my ageing brain to deal with as I have otherwise no real use for these ATM.