Same thing here in Germany, Fibre ISP in my hometown (80k population). Started 5 years ago, widely used already, but still no ipv6.

I have IPv6 available through one of my ISPs at my home, but it doesn't work properly. Packets are just dropped for random intervals here and there.

This behavior was rare in the US market, but it is very common now that our wireless providers are entering the home internet market. T-Mobile and Verizon both use CGNAT (but do issue individual ipv6 addresses to end user devices).

> T-Mobile and Verizon both use CGNAT (but do issue individual ipv6 addresses to end user devices).

More specifically, T-Mobile US only assigns IPv6 addresses to devices, and to reach the IPv4 world you have to go through a translation mechanism.

Presentations from T-Mobile at NANOG and Rocky Mountain IPv6 Taskforce:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE

> T-Mobile and Verizon both use CGNAT

FWIW Verizon FWA does NOT use CGNAT for IPv4.

I assume “FWA” means “fixed wireless access”.

I’ve seen Comcast business also use CGNAT.

It's been a nightmare for my org. We have several people with T-Mobile and Verizon home internet and it's always a game of "What shenanigans will I have to use this week to get VPNs to work?" Sometimes it seems like their 6to4 implementation is just broken but I'm not a network engineer.

Can you run the VPN over IPv6?

I've had T-Mobile Home Internet and haven't had any VPN issues with my workplace (100% WFH)

Perhaps, the IPv4 space is easier to police?

IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4942/

Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9099/

Wow. It's $70 USD (~£57) 1 Gb symmetric here for IPv4 with half-assed IPv6.

2 Gb (but it only performs to 1.1 Gb) is $100 USD (£81).

It's a new company, the £30 pcm is an introductory price, after 2 years it's £40 and by then prices will probably have risen anyway.

Still a great deal, except for needing to pay £5 extra pcm for a routable static IPv4 address.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but here in France there are many commercial ISPs that cannot provide IPv6 because the underlying infrastructure does not support it.

Yes, ideally, an infrastructure provider should not dictate what kind of IP packets the commercial ISP can use, and there are dozens of technologies that would allow them to provide transports that don't care about the routing layer, but in practice, these providers (that we never really hear about as end-users) often make very bizarre choices, for example setting up a complex DHCP interception schemes that feed both the OLT to "open the port" and a BGP route server to announce connected clients at the collection point, of course not supporting IPv6.

In one of the ISPs I work for, we literally have /48s assigned to all of our clients, but the infrastructure provider's doesn't route them to us : IPv6 traffic is rejected at both ends of the transport. The ticket has been open for years (IPv6 was supposed to be part of the network they were commissioned to build), and insiders told me that they had difficulties adapting their transport system for IPv6.

We may end up having to tunnel IPv6 through IPv4 to our clients, but we try to fight against that so that the infrastructure provider doesn't declare the problem "fixed" and decide that the proper way for ISPs to provide IPv6 is to tunnel it through IPv4 so that they don't have to change anything.

Luckily here in Italy the company that was given govt money to connect rural areas with fiber provides simple L2 transport so ISPs are free to provide a fully working dual stack IPv6