Status of ipv6 in South Africa

Genisys said:
To be frank, everyone should be behind CGNAT unless they need access to do port forwarding.

At the end of the day, how many compromised routers are there out there with the classic admin/admin credentials that is just accessible via the internet?
Click to expand...

Never mind the login credentials - how many of them have unpatchable vulnerabilities, because they are cheap and end of life products?

And now people want to justify, CGNAT, so they can continue dishing out devices that should have been binned, and not passed on to paying clients, in the name of financial expedients
 
Last edited:
Gimli_ said:
If you are saying IPv6 is enabled network wide, are you talking about the terrestrial backbone in South Africa? Then yes. Data Centers? Then Yes. But last mile to customer? None of the big players except Afrihost and Metrofiber.

Could you expand by AirMobile and MTN to follow soon?

And you are talking about the networks 'we' can control.... Do you work for one of the ISP's? Care to share?
Click to expand...
Cavedog works for the big red one
 
Gimli_ said:
That is exactly right. It is an ISP problem, not a user problem. See statistics above. Any of those percentages reflecting lower than 1 % I am guessing originates in their core network. Not from their broadband users. Take telkom internet or vodacom or MTN as an example. Who using them as a broadband or mobile provider are able to enable IPv6? No-one. So it is an ISP problem.
Click to expand...

Here's the reality. When we enabled v6 by default and basically forced it on our clients, we had more than 60% penetration on our network.

That was 10 years ago. The <40% were mostly lazy IT managers who didn't want to roll out the big numbers in their MS Active Directory networks.

Today, penetration has dropped to around 20%.

We still switch it on by default, but the end users have grown to hate it. If they have a games console or a dodgy set top box, the first thing they disable is IPv6. If we set up a router at a new client. The first thing the client does, after changing the router password is disable IPv6.

I am seriously considering charging clients who disable IPv6, a premium. Maybe that'll motivate them to re enable it.

Until we win over the hearts and minds of "Average Joe", IPv6 is going nowhere.

As was previously mentioned, Africa has yet to run out of IPv4 addresses. It's only once Average Joe is being NATted at ISP level that people will start waking up.
 
Genisys said:
To be frank, everyone should be behind CGNAT unless they need access to do port forwarding.

At the end of the day, how many compromised routers are there out there with the classic admin/admin credentials that is just accessible via the internet?
Click to expand...
NAT is not a firewall. CGNAT is an abomination and should be banned. NAT is a temporary transition mechanism to deal with IPV4 depletion, that is it.
 
portcullis said:
Here's the reality. When we enabled v6 by default and basically forced it on our clients, we had more than 60% penetration on our network.

That was 10 years ago. The <40% were mostly lazy IT managers who didn't want to roll out the big numbers in their MS Active Directory networks.

Today, penetration has dropped to around 20%.

We still switch it on by default, but the end users have grown to hate it. If they have a games console or a dodgy set top box, the first thing they disable is IPv6. If we set up a router at a new client. The first thing the client does, after changing the router password is disable IPv6.

I am seriously considering charging clients who disable IPv6, a premium. Maybe that'll motivate them to re enable it.

Until we win over the hearts and minds of "Average Joe", IPv6 is going nowhere.

As was previously mentioned, Africa has yet to run out of IPv4 addresses. It's only once Average Joe is being NATted at ISP level that people will start waking up.
Click to expand...
How about making your subscription cheaper if they choose IPV6 only. And then you provide a NAT64 gateway if they heed to get to IPv4 only services? They can save the price of their IPv4 public IP.
 
Gimli_ said:
How about making your subscription cheaper if they choose IPV6 only. And then you provide a NAT64 gateway if they heed to get to IPv4 only services? They can save the price of their IPv4 public IP.
Click to expand...

I've tried this on and off since Afrinic allocated us our first block in 2013.

It's a fail.

Somewhere you need to perform v6 to v4 conversion. It's not only for websites that haven't enabled IPv6, but also communication with hosted services, such as our ISP management system, SPLYNX, that will allocate the client an IPv6 block, but only communicates with the client via IPv4.

One day...
 
I see Microsoft now launching CLAT for Win11. Mac and Linux has a CLAT daemon. Android and Apple mobile supports 464xlat. So such a move might be possible soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X