Menu
Reply
ksim
  • 99
  • 0
  • 23
Up to speed
1,399 Views
Message 851 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media


@Anonymous wrote:

Hmm. Not really. Many like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and CDNs like Cloudflare, Akamai surely have and reaped the benefits. A great many have not. Twitter, the BBC and many newspapers (Mirror, Sun, Guardian, Telegraph) being easy examples that have yet to make the switch. According to https://whynoipv6.com/ only 350 of the Alexa top 1000 sites are IPv6 enabled.

On my own network my mostly pedestrian web browsing is showing 21% of downstream traffic as IPv6 and 12.9% of upstream. If you exclude my YouTube addiction it's probably the 12.9% number that's more typical.

It is not about web traffic, it is about devices from local network with public IPs, without IPv6 I can't access CCTV cameras directly, I can't access doorbell/home-assistant/monitoring system/media player/fridge/washing machine, I have to implement NAT translation/nginx proxy/use Cloudflare/DNS override, the traffic from this devices is about 2-3%, but this is not why IPv6 can be ignored, newspapers are not working with my devices, google assistant does, that is why Google has IPv6 and Mirror is not (BTW BBC has IPv6 enabled API).


@Anonymous wrote:

@ksim wrote:
Even this forum is using IPv6 ;-),

This is a good spot! They must have turned this on fairly recently. A quick survey of other VM services shows they're still on IPv4-only unfortunately.


this forum is not made or hosted by VM, they are just paying third-party, and the third-party is using AWS where IPv6 comes with a click of a button

Anonymous
Not applicable
1,363 Views
Message 852 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media

I'm struggling to follow your argument. We're discussing/advocating that VM deploy IPv6 not the generic benefits of IPv6 [1].

For a consumer ISP like VM traffic and customer experience is everything. VM have made few pronouncements w.r.t. IPv6 but those they have made indicate that they are waiting for the content providers to make a greater move to IPv6. Given their desire to use DS-Lite [2] this makes complete sense. The more native IPv6 traffic (by bandwidth and/or connections) the better as this will reduce the load on their AFTR CG-NAT boxes which in turn reduces Cap-Ex. Also, more native IPv6 traffic will reduce the likelihood of AFTR CG-NAT induced breakage of network applications so better customer experience and fewer support calls.

This surely validates (from VMs point of view) the wait-and-see approach to deployment that they would appear to be holding to however much it may frustrate (or delight) the enthusiasts on this forum.

[1] I fully agree with your assertions on the benefits of IPv6. I was an engineer and latterly an engineering manager for a large CCTV manufacturer for over 13 years. A world without NAT would open up many opportunities in that arena. Never enough to influence ISPs deployment plans however.

[2] The merits and demerits of DS-Lite have been done to death on this thread. I don't think we need to re-open that can of worms. It's clearly Liberty Global's preferred technology for better or worse.

0 Kudos
Reply
ksim
  • 99
  • 0
  • 23
Up to speed
1,337 Views
Message 853 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media

It is wrong to think that IPv6 migration should follow content providers, content providers will support IPv4 for years, while they even have 1% of IPv4 traffic. This thinking (and VM follows it) leads to "why implement IPv6 at all if everything is accessible through IPv4", surprise!! that is what is exactly what they are saying: "But what could you be downloading over 6in4 tunnel that you can't get over IPv4?"! https://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Speed/traffic-shaping-for-protocol-41/m-p/4023900/highlight/tru... For a user who is opening youtube/facebook/netflix IPv6 makes no difference, moving BBC, twitter or anyone else to IPv6 will not make any difference for VM, as the services will be available on IPv4 also.

My point: IPv6 is needed now in our homes for IoT devices. I already have around 10-15 devices/services. It is an easy plug and play with IPv6, but requires a lot of knowledge to make NAT/PROXY/Forwarding work with IPv4. IPv4 is how VM creates a bad user experience today.

Want to play a game with friends? -> learn port forwarding, more fun when you the only one who can't connect and you have to teach your friend (who is on IPv6) to configure port forwarding for IPv4. Want Nest secure? -> learn tunnels, and VM will cap you. Want to access CCTV footage without exposing it to somebody else servers? -> learn port forwarding and proxy. Simple things become 100 times more complex.

I've sent my complaint to obdusmen as VM is capping me and other users against own policy https://assets.virginmedia.com/help/assets/documents/Virgin_Fibre_Traffic_Management_Key_Facts_Indic....

0 Kudos
Reply
VMCopperUser
  • 3.6K
  • 122
  • 446
Trouble shooter
1,330 Views
Message 854 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media

Yea, I agree, If their user base was to climb fast enough to go past their IPv4 limit then they would be forced to introduce that NAT layer.  So adopting it now is probably a good move as that limit being hit would be virtually transparent.  Still, it should be possible when we do get CG-Nat for us all to have our own IP, similar to now, until such a time that they run out of v4's to hand out.

As for content providers.  They have no huge incentive to move over to IPv6.  They know users will have v4 - even if it's NAT v4 so why spend time time and effort rolling out their own DS solutions.  I believe a lot of the providers don't want to move to IPv6 because of security/blocking issues.  Right now it's easy to block an IP range/single address.  That's going to become quite difficult with v6 as you'll need to kill huge blocks.

The biggest benefit is User to User hosting.  Something that Content providers, Broadband providers, and most of the monetized industry out there cant benefit from.  I have no doubt that User-Tracking/Ad services are also pushing back against IPv6.  Creative IP changes could see that industry get stung.

I look forward to NAT going away.  But it's difficult when no one wishes to lay the egg, or hatch it.

----
I do not work for VM, but I would. It is just a Job.
Most things I say I make up and sometimes it's useful, don't be mean if it's wrong.
I would also make websites for them, because the job never seems to require the website to work.
0 Kudos
Reply
Anonymous
Not applicable
1,291 Views
Message 855 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media

Not sure that blocking is that much harder in IPv6 if you mask off at the /64 level. That said if people have build a whole toolchain tightly bound to IPv4 they're going to balk at the engineering changes needed.

Saw an article a month or two back that suggested it might take 20 years before a majority have migrated to IPv6. Was quite depressing.

What's needed is a killer app that only works on IPv6.

0 Kudos
Reply
ksim
  • 99
  • 0
  • 23
Up to speed
1,278 Views
Message 856 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media


@Anonymous wrote:
What's needed is a killer app that only works on IPv6.

the app can't become a killer as will not work for the majority of users. chicken and egg.

But the things is: I am more than happy use HE or other tunnel provider, just do not cap the traffic!!!!

0 Kudos
Reply
VMCopperUser
  • 3.6K
  • 122
  • 446
Trouble shooter
1,247 Views
Message 857 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media

I am not sure VM is capping HE.

It seems too random.  Sometimes I can hit full speed, other times I am low like other people.

Granted, I "generally" do not use HE/IPv6 tunnels because my ad-blocking scripts seem to croak when using IPv4 and IPv6 both... so I am not able to give a lot of feedback.

Plus the problem with tunnels, is that it can be hard to see where the bottleneck is happening.  Imagine you running TOR over a VPN over Ipv6 (HE) on Virgin Media... If TOR is slow then  you would likely never be able to pin down exactly where the problem is.

I honestly don't mind throttling, the AYCE mentality of broadband users is wrong and has been for years.  Sadly when a ISP starts to throttle then they also see it as a opportunity to add more users as Utilization will show it's okay, I don't like that aspect of it. 

Regardless... We just need IPv6 to start rolling out - at this point anything would be okay.  But It will be interesting to see how many people suffer with CGNat.

----
I do not work for VM, but I would. It is just a Job.
Most things I say I make up and sometimes it's useful, don't be mean if it's wrong.
I would also make websites for them, because the job never seems to require the website to work.
matthewsteeples
  • 66
  • 2
  • 4
Dialled in
1,232 Views
Message 858 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media


@ksim wrote:

My point: IPv6 is needed now in our homes for IoT devices. I already have around 10-15 devices/services. It is an easy plug and play with IPv6, but requires a lot of knowledge to make NAT/PROXY/Forwarding work with IPv4. IPv4 is how VM creates a bad user experience today.

Want Nest secure? -> learn tunnels, and VM will cap you. Want to access CCTV footage without exposing it to somebody else servers? -> learn port forwarding and proxy. Simple things become 100 times more complex.

 


The problem is that a) we're in a majority and b) IPv6 won't change a lot of the things you're complaining about. 

Don't get me wrong, I want IPv6 and believe it's the future, but I disagree with the reasons you're saying.

I've currently got (according to the Hub) 20 devices connected to the internet, for 3 humans.
1 of them is a manufactured camera which works with their app inside and outside the house without any port forwarding required (no account required, and I assume it goes via a server, I've not checked the traffic. There's a slim chance it could be opening a port).
1 is a smart thermostat which works with their app without any port forwarding required (which I'd be amazed if your Nest Protect doesn't do too).
3 of them are "smart speakers"; again no config required
n of them are Raspberry Pis (which do require config, but they'd require config on IPv6 too)

IPv6 makes "inbound" connections a lot easier, but the majority of IoT doesn't want inbound connections because it's a massive security risk. IPv6 isn't going to change any of the communication pathways for the average user: the thermostat is still going to go through their web service, which is what it should do (at least when you're outside the house). If you think port forwarding is hard to configure, wait until you have to explain to someone that they need to update the firmware on their lightbulbs because all of a sudden it's passively sniffing their network traffic and relaying information out to China.

So on to the bits that we want. It's still going to require some configuration, but rather than port forwarding we're going to have to configure some form of DNS settings (unless you're memorising or hardcoding 128 bit values) and firewall rules (how do you control whether a device is accessible outside of your network, as everything would have a public address by default). It makes no difference to me whether I have to forward a port for a Raspberry Pi or whether I have to have a DNS record for it. As I'm most likely on IPv4 when out and about (public hotspots etc) I'd need to do both for a while anyway (that's hypothetical, I actually use ZeroTier)

 

0 Kudos
Reply
matthewsteeples
  • 66
  • 2
  • 4
Dialled in
1,221 Views
Message 859 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media


@VMCopperUser wrote:

The biggest benefit is User to User hosting.  Something that Content providers, Broadband providers, and most of the monetized industry out there cant benefit from.  I have no doubt that User-Tracking/Ad services are also pushing back against IPv6.  Creative IP changes could see that industry get stung.

I look forward to NAT going away.  But it's difficult when no one wishes to lay the egg, or hatch it.


That poses its own problems though. What are you going to be hosting that is going to be better on your VM upload bandwidth than on a server/CDN somewhere? It'll be fine for text pages, but all you'd need is 3-4 people streaming a video at once and your connection would grind to a halt. Any more than that and your users are going to be faced with buffering. If you want user to user hosting to take off, then we need to start looking at technologies such as https://ipfs.io which don't require IPv6 to work (as they punch holes and do lots of clever stuff) but would obviously benefit slightly from it.

Also, your IP address isn't currently a reliable tracking mechanism, as a) multiple people in a household share it and b) not every provider offers static (or "sticky" in the case of VM) addresses. Combine that with GDPR and I bet that advertisers aren't that bothered about it. If anything, IPv6 helps them because each user (for a given session) is guaranteed to not be sharing that address with anyone else. And if their OS doesn't cycle addresses for privacy reasons (defaults to on in Windows, but can be disabled) then they will always have the same IP address (assuming ISP keeps the prefix the same)

0 Kudos
Reply
VMCopperUser
  • 3.6K
  • 122
  • 446
Trouble shooter
1,212 Views
Message 860 of 1,282
Flag for a moderator

Re: IPv6 support on Virgin media

Yea, I guess your correct about users having the same fixed IP now, perhaps that's a bit of a win some loose some sort of thing.  I would imagine that once IPv6 is standard then obfuscation through IP rotation will become standard.  Time will tell on that.

And User to User transmissions need not be high bandwidth, As it stands how 15 meg can push through 4k HDR without any issues, so even if users are opting for video streaming I don't think that would be a issue.  Honestly when I say User to User hosting I am meaning other things like file sharing (Family Photos, Documents, that ilk), Voice and Video chat facilities, Playing games, home security, cans of bean inventory from the tracker in the kitchen.  Not everyone wants to pirate Movies all day long ;P.  I could see tor/darkweb services enjoying IPv6 a little, but probably not enough for it to even think about (not a fan personally).

Users looking to stream to multiple people/places have better options too - ones that support multicast.

One of the Bigger problems for ISP's would be User to User VPN's to get around GeoLocation.  Once that Ipv4 NAT layer is removed, then routers should be able to cope a lot better with a high concurrent connection, It could (but probably won't) help bring down some of those GeoLocation walls we have.

 

----
I do not work for VM, but I would. It is just a Job.
Most things I say I make up and sometimes it's useful, don't be mean if it's wrong.
I would also make websites for them, because the job never seems to require the website to work.
0 Kudos
Reply