IPv6 support on Virgin media

[dgcarter]

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

[thelem]

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.

[jamesmacwhite]

If Virgin Media do finally deploy DS Lite on the network in production (let's face it, it is probably likely because the Super Hub 3 and Hub4 firmware already has it baked in and you can even peek at the config with the JS files and see the conditions and flags for the DS Lite configuration.

Here's what the options will be probably be:

• If your CPE is router mode, you'll likely get the config without doing anything, they'll push it out to you.
• If your CPE is modem mode, you will likely not get the config, because they'll just cause a massive spike in support calls as why a customers network is suddenly broke, as the people in modem mode probably deliberately don't want router mode and DS Lite won't work in modem mode anyway. It was stated at the IPv6 Council in December 2018, they would potentially drop support for modem mode with the IPv6 config, because of the poor support for DS Lite in consumer routers.
• If you had DS Lite and in router mode and you want out, you'll probably have to ask them to turn on the flag for modem mode on their side as it seems controllable by them. Basically the same situation with Virgin Media Ireland.

Virgin Media will probably be suggesting if having a routed IPv4 to you is the main priority, modem mode will be the answer at your own expense but with no IPv6 and you'll be forced to be making that choice yourself. It remains to be seen if they would offer any dual stack option as an extra. I find it unlikely for the residential lines to be honest, because their parent company Liberty Global has DS Lite all over their network. They have some dual stack deployments but that is likely from acquisitions or inheriting a previous network setup and doesn't have any value in changing. 

The alternative would be VM Business as I'd imagine they will not be doing DS Lite on their business lines. I haven't seen any info for IPv6 for the business side but I'd be very surprised if it isn't dual stack with a /56 or similar, much like BT and others. Although, I hope the implementation is better than the GRE tunnel for static IPv4 fiasco, as that has been horrible reading the stories. When you see business customers going back to a dynamic IPv4 to avoid the issues, kind of says you screwed up.

[ksim]

---

@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.

[jamesmacwhite]

> 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.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/europol-calls-internet-providers-end-cgnat-ip-address-...

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.

[ksim]

> killer app on IPv6 only

you can't have a "killer app" if you exclude huge mobile and VM audience, chicken and egg thing, ISP won't move because "everything" "works" in IPv4, software companies have to implement workarounds for their products to work in IPv4 otherwise they loose audience, I kind of can ignore or limit 3% if old IE users, but not 30-40% of IPv4-only customers... But if you an ISP in 2020 and do not understand the importance of IPv6, not migrated or in a process of rolling it out, then you are a piece of incompetence **bleep**.

[thelem]

@ksim I think we're making the same point.

ISPs can offer v6 or not offer v6.
ISPs can use CG-NAT, or give everyone their own IP.

There doesn't need to be any connection between the two, although DS-Lite is slightly nicer than v4-only CG-NAT, because there is less traffic sent over v4.

[Adduxi]

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" ?

[spgray]

VM is generally regarded as not great for gaming.
DSL remains the preferred choice for serious gamers.

[jamesmacwhite]

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.

[VMCopperUser]

---

@jamesmacwhite wrote:

> 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.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/10/europol-calls-internet-providers-end-cgnat-ip-address-...

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.

---

If 100 people share a IP then they would need a court order for discovery on all 100 people.  But the bigger issue is when there is flagrant disregard to digital media theft then it makes it much harder to find and shut down sources with hundreds or thousands of people caught under a single scope.  I fight with my children (Now late teen and early adult) to stop them downloading illegal material because they know so many people who really don't care.  Fighting small problems are uneconomical so people assume it's okay.

The definition of an ISP should also include IPv6.  If it does not provide IPv4 AND IPv6 transit then it should not allow itself to advertise as such.  There has been more than enough warning about this change.  The reality of it is that IPv6 has been around since before many people ever had the internet, your looking at something that's nearly 25 years old, the warning was in place before the internet was actually a thing for the public.  All providers only have themselves to blame for deployment issues.  When your building a new home and you find the foundations are faulty then most people would seek to fix the problem, If you are an ISP then you would wait 30 years and see if a wall starts falling down then try to get it repaired.

IPv6 is not the future, it is the Now.  Yes IPv4 works for most people and for most things.  And you are correct in that as long as porn, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and illegal streaming sites work then people think the internet is working.  These people are why we get a MOT in the UK.