@dlakelan
Example on old Cisco SMB switch:

Enabling querier for vlan 100 (setting querier version is optional)
and then enabling globally.

ipv6 mld snooping vlan 100 querier version 2
ipv6 mld snooping vlan 100 querier
ipv6 mld snooping querier

ip igmp snooping vlan 100 querier version 3
ip igmp snooping vlan 100 querier
ip igmp snooping querier

For ref, IGMP is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Group_Management_Protocol
links to MLD for IPv6.

Without IGMP / MLD filtering/snooping, switches flood multicast.

@dlakelan
If any of your managed switches are doing bridge multicast filtering / snooping,
hosts need to subscribe to the IPv6 multicast destination group addresses they wish to receive on.
For this to happen something on your network needs to send periodic MLD querier messages so that hosts will renew their group memberships.

Depending on the make/model of your managed switch(es) one of them can perform this role (for each vlan if applicable).

Same with IGMP snooping on IPv4.

@CliffsEsport
For organisations with LTS releases like Canonical, the timing creates additional work while in FeatureFreeze for 26.04.

And will be evaluating whether 6 or more LTS will be in scope for backporting and then supporting it (18.04, 20.04, 22.04, 24.04, 26.04, 28.04) (and some non-LTS).

Then an expanding/ongoing role for tracking how and when laws for each state/province of multiple countries come into effect if they even want to continue to offer a product in these markets.

@CliffsEsport
OS/distro organisations will need to determine that and other questions on scope/applicability.

Servers: (say) exclude system accounts and user accounts only associated with services (as opposed to users with interactive or network login enabled).

Organisations: consideration whether to use existing data from an directory system (e.g. AD).

I will wait for Canonical's take, was only mentioning how leaks of non-age info could arise from differences in age brackets by location.

@jnsgruk
Thanks for this, the mailing list discussion was thought provoking.

Particularly the side effect for laptops and other portable computers, since apps and OSes may need to determine whether they are currently operating in a jurisdiction that has (which) age-related laws in effect, this has potential for disclosing location data via the age brackets that are being returned.

So no idea how any of this even works for a laptop being used in the back of a car / taxi or on a train either.

@jschauma
If you zoom in on the period Jan 2009 to Dec 2012
you will see that tunnelled IPv6 (e.g. 6to4/Teredo) peaked and then became negligible as a proportion of overall IPv6 traffic during 2012, which was the year total IPv6 adoption reached 1% in December.

That era was the start of IPv6 proper, no more than 15 years ago.

On everything else I agree you have a point.

@jschauma
Further, there is no particular reason to assert that "Pareto principle" must apply to this. A cumulative distribution S-curve would fit the graphed data even if the inflection point ends up being closer to 40% than 50%.

It does not matter if we only get to 80-90% adoption in 15 more years as islands of IPv4 were always expected to hang around in a long tail rather than "turn off IPv4 after x years".

Early IPv6 was tunnelled over v4 and the tail can be the reverse of this.

@jschauma
Some valid points in the thread

But this and the blog article omits to mention that a general agreement to actually start a public roll out of IPv6 worldwide only happened in June 2012, as opposed to the year it was first designed.
(There was a test of that idea in 2011, whereas 2012 was the year of "ok turn it on but leave it on this time").

So "30 years" doesn't really apply here. The adoption curve reflects this.

@revk
There are open public NAT64 gateways not locked down to particular regions which is another layer (pun intended) for scope confusion.

As I understand it, all Apple i-devices have the facility for persistent v6 tunnelling for iCloud functions so I imagine Apple will have to parse the proposed legislation or find themselves in a similar situation that already happened where they decided to withdraw certain elements of a service from UK market (encrypted storage without holding keys).

@revk
I've said it before but underlying reasoning (if it even gets down to it)
is not about the property of "encryption" but the property of whether a service as provided can make your traffic appear to be coming from a different public IP, or region, or provide some anonymity by grouping you with unrelated persons.

Simple web proxies have this quality without encryption.

Even if SSH was not in scope , L2TP and any IP overlay service would be so service providers would need to age gate.