We have 1.7 million broadband private customers. When I see what kind of services they use, I guess you could say that it’s a completely marginal topic. Just like, for example, a fixed IP address.
It’s just that development capacities are limited and you have to find a sensible way for everything. We always tried quick wins. I have brought the topic of IPv6 to the table several times and my team has (desperately) looked for good reasons to give the topic a higher priority than other topics. But honestly, we couldn’t. We ourselves had many other issues that were more important. And the current path is good, because at some point the pieces will all fit together.
I would also like to fulfill every customer’s wish. But unfortunately it doesn’t work. If the topic is so important to you, then you may have to change. But I won’t say anything about other providers and/or “expert” tips.
@MCFH wrote:
“There are no advantages”
Should be “There are no advantages” should be “There are no advantages for SwissCom” - completely ignoring the customer’s needs like any good monopoly….
For the “normal consumer”, i.e. around 98% of customers, IPv6 does not bring any advantages and in certain cases it even has disadvantages.
@hed wrote:
@MCFH wrote:
“There are no advantages”
Should be “There are no advantages” Should be “There are no advantages for SwissCom” - completely ignoring the customer’s needs like any good monopoly….For the “normal consumer”, i.e. around 98% of customers, IPv6 does not bring any advantages and in certain cases it even has disadvantages.
This is no reason not to introduce native IPv6. Let’s ask ourselves why Init7 makes it and Swisscom doesn’t? And let’s ask ourselves why we’ve been hearing for years that it’s about to be introduced and no one really understands why it’s not finally happening?
But at the latest, when the world cannot use IPv6 services (which do not run under v4), the world will understand what Swisscom has really missed. And then maybe you too will understand @hed that IPv6 is good and not evil…
This is not about the fundamental discussion of whether IPv6 is generally an advantage or disadvantage for customers, but rather about “native IPv6” and some of us have reasons for this.
I am also aware of problems from end customers who have problems with IPv6, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the introduction of “native IPv6”. Rather the opposite is the case.
It would be a total shame if Swisscom fell to the level of its competitors, but at least that doesn’t seem to be the case.
@andiroid here it is beautifully described why Swisscom "until now “can’t do it”. Init7 perhaps has a slightly smaller and more “exclusive” customer base than Swisscom, and can perhaps therefore focus on it in more depth?
If there are services that only run on IPv6 and Swisscom customers are disadvantaged as a result, then Swisscom has a problem. I see it that way too.
Hello folks,
My original question wasn’t actually about a pro/con IPv6 discussion. I would simply like to use what is mostly already there properly and I would like to receive a little expert advice.
Whether Swisscom provides the range via 6RD or native isn’t even that important to me, as long as there are alternative solutions. As far as I know, SC already assigns more than one /64, but unfortunately with the high-end router they use, they can’t make it so that I can also use the assigned /48. (and yes, if possible I want a solution with the SC router and not replace the part with a third product)
If there is a way, for example, by terminating IPv6 on the router via 6rd and I can route the remaining networks via the DMZ function or a routing entry, for example, that would be helpful to me.
@Columbo wrote:
If there are load peaks in the Swisscom (BBCS) network, do the Swisscom users’ VoIP packets have priority over the Copper7 PPPoE packets?
Fredy Künzler doesn’t know. He may clarify things with wholesalers. But basically there are different traffic classes, voice, TV multicast and best efford. By the way, possibly. Priority for IPSS.
Voice traffic is very low. The network elements have a certain capacity. I hardly believe that these would come to an end in such a way that it would affect PPPoE customers at all. If the worst comes to the worst, it affects everyone because best effort makes up the majority of the traffic.
The first network of the /60 range is assigned to the LAN, the second to the guest network. The other 14 networks cannot currently be used with the Internet boxes. The necessary prefix delegation was announced in April 2019 for the end of 2019. Apparently the project was postponed. But hopefully not canceled, @SamuelD and @MichelB?
To be fair, one must also see that Switzerland is well in the running internationally when it comes to IPv6 adaptation, and Swisscom has contributed a large part to this. Of course, 6rd is just an interim solution, and unfortunately Swisscom hasn’t made much progress on this topic for years. Let’s see if the prefix delegation comes soon. Technically it shouldn’t be too difficult and would once again be a visible step forward.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
I think the reason some people here are “upset” now is because many people (including me) have been following this topic for years and we were repeatedly put off with dates in the future, updates were only posted upon request. It was also clear to everyone that progress was slow and that Swisscom’s self-interest had to be limited.
BUT: There was hope that this could ultimately be realized. After all, data was given several times, the thread has existed for several years now and many people simply waited for it with a lot of patience.
THAT’S why yesterday’s update was certainly a slap in the face for many (including me).
Btw: The fact that only 2% benefit from native IPv6 - can one of the experts here comment on whether this can ensure better ping in online gaming or whether it has advantages elsewhere? I think I read that native IPv6 has advantages in gaming.
I claim that more than 2% of customers would benefit from it.
It’s not about good or bad, but about timing the market correctly. You can be on the market too late with a product or technology or you can be too early on the market.
You could buy electric cars as early as 1890, and the breakthrough came 130 years later. This is just one of countless examples of market failure because you weren’t in the right place at the right time.
As soon as the millennium hype was over in 2001, the IPv6 soup was stirred up with a big ladle. Even world-famous representatives of science, industry and politics have been roped in to spread crisis scenarios more credibly. Even the World Bank warned at the time that there would be drastic damage to the economy if the world did not manage to completely switch to IPv6 by 2020 at the latest. Back then, the industry wasted billions and sent people to training courses; certifications and even post-graduate studies were springing up like mushrooms. Labels were created (Ipv6ready), laboratories were set up and POCs were run to convert the entire infrastructure to IPv6. Everyone felt like they were missing out if they didn’t jump on the bandwagon.
And now 20 years later, when the time is more than ripe for IPv6, the air is out and hardly anyone in the industry is interested in it anymore. For example, projects in the network sector are put out to tender and even for companies that are very technically savvy, IPv6 is no longer even mentioned in the specifications.