<html aria-label="message body"><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Exactly. Working with customers in many EU countries, the reality is that many operators try to avoid you enter into the CPE, but if you ask them, they are enforced to provide the PWD. All the EU countries have a regulator figure that accepts “quick” complains from the users and they act really fast on that. Just telling the operator “if you don’t give me full access I will place a complain to the regulator”, it works. Of course many people don’t know that, but that’s a different history, because google will tell you quickly.</div><div><br></div><div>Usually regulators understand that the ONT is still part of the operator network. So if they provide you an integrated CPE with ONT, you must use either:</div><div>1) A certified ONT (for example in Spain Movistar/Telefonica has 8 certified models for up to 1 Gbps symmetric GPON, which you can buy by less than 10-15 Euros), and then you place whatever CPE you want behind it.</div><div>2) A certified router with ONT. In this case you have much less models to choose.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the IPv6 paths and Happy Eyeballs (HE), if you read the relevant RFC8305 (v2, v1 was 6555), you will see that the first timer is only 50ms. If the resolution of AAAA is slower than the A one. You already have a fallback. This is what could create already lower % of IPv6 traffic than expected. Of course, then you have the other timer, which adds on top of that. Vendors can adapt those timers to their own needs, typically based on telemetry data that collect from users.</div><div><br></div><div>In fact, Apple tested this HE implementation during 2 years with real users around the world before proposing it in IETF, and from those measurements they gathered the initial suggested timings.</div><div><br></div><div>One of the problems with HE is that many operators, unfortunately, don’t pay the same attention and monitoring to IPv6 than IPv4. So if there are too many fallbacks to IPv4, you could know it. Also HE itself doesn’t have a “reporting” mechanism. I’ve proposed it for years in IETF, but didn’t gained sufficient consensus.</div><div><a href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palet-v6ops-he-reporting-00.txt">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palet-v6ops-he-reporting-00.txt</a></div><div><a href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-xie-v6ops-network-happyeyeballs-00.txt">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-xie-v6ops-network-happyeyeballs-00.txt</a></div><div><br></div><div>In any case, this situation is going to change a bit, becase now we have more problem, such as the fallback from QUIC to TCP, etc. If you take a look at the chapter and document of this WG, which is progressing quickly, now the reporting should be an integral part of the protocol:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/happy/about/">https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/happy/about/</a></div><div><br></div><div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div>
<div>Regards,<br>Jordi<br><br>@jordipalet<br></div>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>El 9 jul 2026, a las 6:41, sm+afrinic@elandsys.com escribió:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>Hi Jaco,<br><br>I saw your comments about IPv6. There is an assumption that the IPv4 and IPv6 path are somewhat similar [1][2]. It is not always the case. The comment also mentioned "European standard of users". There is an article (in German) about that at https://www.heise.de/news/Umfrage-in-Europa-Umsetzung-der-Routerfreiheit-nach-wie-vor-problematisch-9056401.html<br><br>Your comment got me to look into the network termination point angle. The optical network terminal (ONT) is where that it (it may be different for you). It could be leveraged to look into the internal network. If there is a concern [3] about that, it could be mitigated by placing another box between the ONT and the internal network.<br><br>Regards,<br>S. Moonesamy<br><br>1. A web browser would try the IPv6 address, wait for 250 ms and fallback to IPv4.<br>2. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3730567.3732925<br>3. It depends on the local regulations.<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>afnog mailing list<br>https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br>
<br>
</body></html>