Why No IPv6?(whynoipv6.com)
whynoipv6.com
Why No IPv6?
https://whynoipv6.com/
179 comments
At some point IPv4 address space will be all allocated. Its just that many people don't feel the pain yet nor have the foresight to do any preparation.
I'm all IPv6 and i got my first network segments that are IPv6 only. I got nothing to fear. And no NAT.
I'm all IPv6 and i got my first network segments that are IPv6 only. I got nothing to fear. And no NAT.
This go-to argument for why we must all start using IPv6 doesn't fly, at least for me. We ran out of IPv4 some time ago, and yet, here we still are.
> We ran out of IPv4 some time ago, and yet, here we still are.
Yup. Spending money CG-NAT gear:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
Yup. Spending money CG-NAT gear:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
It depends on what you're doing. I am using IPv6 in my home network because I simply couldn't host anything on my CGNATed IPv4 connectivity. Working around this CGNAT either costed money and/or required people to install additional client on their machine to holepunch through the CGNAT, which wasn't ideal since all I wanted was to host a simple blog.
Guess why people are being forced to move to CGNAT? Precisely because we have run out of addresses.
The dismissal attitude of HN towards IPv6 ("we ran out of IPv4 and everything still works!") will always baffle me. Because things are _failing_ to work.
Guess why people are being forced to move to CGNAT? Precisely because we have run out of addresses.
The dismissal attitude of HN towards IPv6 ("we ran out of IPv4 and everything still works!") will always baffle me. Because things are _failing_ to work.
> I'm all IPv6 and ...
Good for you! I hope my thorough ignoring the issue will not hurt your feelings.
Good for you! I hope my thorough ignoring the issue will not hurt your feelings.
It won't hurt the feelings of the IPv6 people, since IPv6 clients can connect to IPv4 services just fine through NAT64.
But IPv4 people won't be able to connect to IPv6 services no matter how, so don't go surprised_pikachu.jpg whenever someone decides they don't want to pay for the IPv4 tax: https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://loopsofzen.uk/
But IPv4 people won't be able to connect to IPv6 services no matter how, so don't go surprised_pikachu.jpg whenever someone decides they don't want to pay for the IPv4 tax: https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://loopsofzen.uk/
Alarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened.
It's not that it will be disastrous. It's that it already is disastrous right now.
The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been for all of those "at least 15 years". The network can't deliver its most basic function, which is to let any node talk to any other node at will.
As a result, the designs of huge numbers of higher-layer protocols have been warped and complicated, and the whole thing has contributed to the whole maelstrom of extreme commercial centralization pressures, too.
Everybody who wasn't willing to hard cut over to IPv6 should have been forced off of the Internet 20 years ago.
The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been for all of those "at least 15 years". The network can't deliver its most basic function, which is to let any node talk to any other node at will.
As a result, the designs of huge numbers of higher-layer protocols have been warped and complicated, and the whole thing has contributed to the whole maelstrom of extreme commercial centralization pressures, too.
Everybody who wasn't willing to hard cut over to IPv6 should have been forced off of the Internet 20 years ago.
The problem is that there are way fewer than 4 billion people who actually have anything worth connecting to their node for. 99% of internet users are strictly consumers, and a protocol change won't do anything about that. For them, there's little difference.
This is patently false. They don't host services, sure, but the current landscape has all but shaped application design into assuming at least one party will be behind a NAT, which heavily centralizes traffic because it becomes impossible to make truly decentralized apps. Take a small look at the TURN and STUN, things that would have no business existing if all nodes could have an address.
There are very valid reasons to want to send traffic to a node so called "out of the blue", and suggesting otherwise suggests you have never looked deeper than HTTP.
There are very valid reasons to want to send traffic to a node so called "out of the blue", and suggesting otherwise suggests you have never looked deeper than HTTP.
Video conferencing and online games. A pretty big market.
> Alarmists have been telling us for at least 15 years that the IPv4 space is about to be exhausted and how disastrous that will be. So far, nothing has happened.
Tell that to millions of people stuck behind CG-NAT. Tell that to ISPs trying to serve communities on shoe-string budgets:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
Tell that to millions of people stuck behind CG-NAT. Tell that to ISPs trying to serve communities on shoe-string budgets:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
...and climate scientists have been ringing the alarm bell for more than 40 years and only now that it is kind of too late people timidly start to take them into account and do non significative changes in their life.
And unless laws force them to, which will be hard to implement because individual countries do not want to hamper their own economic competitivity, the industries won't do anything more than the actual greenwashing.
Chabges usually have to be implemented BEFORE the disasters happen. In a seismic zone, we should build earthquake resistant buildings now, not after the first major earthquake.
And unless laws force them to, which will be hard to implement because individual countries do not want to hamper their own economic competitivity, the industries won't do anything more than the actual greenwashing.
Chabges usually have to be implemented BEFORE the disasters happen. In a seismic zone, we should build earthquake resistant buildings now, not after the first major earthquake.
You a climate change denier too, by any chance? The rhetoric is the same. Using the word "alarmist" to dismiss valid concerns, conveniently ignoring all the negative consequences that already have occurred and sprouting nonsense like "nothing has happened."
What's happened is that everybody has been forced behind NAT, completely obliterating pretty much the whole point of Internet to begin with, and that addresses that could be essentially free are super expensive. But la la la nothing has happeeeeeeeened!
What's happened is that everybody has been forced behind NAT, completely obliterating pretty much the whole point of Internet to begin with, and that addresses that could be essentially free are super expensive. But la la la nothing has happeeeeeeeened!
Please don't cross into personal attack or post in the flamewar style to HN. Those are two of the things we most want to avoid here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Noted, point taken.
You can overexaggerate a valid concern in an alarmistic manner. I'd argue the alarmistic, implausible reporting on climate change is the main cause of the scepticism.
Being told 18 years ago in middle school that it’d be 50° outside 12 years ago has kept me skeptical during quite a few years.
Overexaggerating only makes your point come across as weak, and in my case, made me think it was all bullshit for money.
Just be honest.
Overexaggerating only makes your point come across as weak, and in my case, made me think it was all bullshit for money.
Just be honest.
So 18 years ago "they" said it would be 50 degrees ... 12 years ago? What?
And exactly who do you think is profiting?
And exactly who do you think is profiting?
Yes. I'm sure it's the occasional exaggerated reporting in tabloid media that is at fault. The billions of dollars that have been funneled into extremely focused lobbying campaigns spreading FUD and disinformation for 50 years have probably only had marginal effect.
Hetzner charges extra for IPv4 allocation.
Because now most new users are shoved behind CGNAT where they can't accept inbound connections.
The internet as consumers know it becoming only a tool to browse websites and not an actual internet connection that can do say, peer-to-peer gaming, sucks.
The internet as consumers know it becoming only a tool to browse websites and not an actual internet connection that can do say, peer-to-peer gaming, sucks.
The RIPE waiting list is at 400+ days. And getting bigger everyday.
> So far, nothing has happened.
Everything the "alarmists" told us has already happened. IPv4 address space has already run out which now means that you often have to pay an ever increasing fee to use a public IPv4 address, if you get one at all (more and more people are sitting behing a CG-NAT). Public IPv6 blocks are completely free.
Everything the "alarmists" told us has already happened. IPv4 address space has already run out which now means that you often have to pay an ever increasing fee to use a public IPv4 address, if you get one at all (more and more people are sitting behing a CG-NAT). Public IPv6 blocks are completely free.
following geoff huston, v4 address pressure/usage is actually declining.
reasons range from cdn prevalence to cgnat and v6 "islands" but the old internet seems to be chugging along
reasons range from cdn prevalence to cgnat and v6 "islands" but the old internet seems to be chugging along
I vaguely remember "celebrating" IPv6 day I believe in 2011 when the last block was assigned from IANA (? - I can never remember which authority does what other than ARIN). Obviously IPv4 addresses can be recycled and NAT and SNI have greatly increased the capacity of a single IP. My company "only" has a pair of /27 blocks which we used to use quite carefully, but now acknowledge will practically never be a limit for our uses.
IPv4 ranges will always be available for sale. Businesses will only start to migrate when the cost of holding those allocations outweighs the balance on their books.
The lack of adoption by major players (GitHub, twitch, IMDb, etc) is a financial one, not a technical one.
The lack of adoption by major players (GitHub, twitch, IMDb, etc) is a financial one, not a technical one.
Well, it doesn't help that IPv6 is a technological equivalent of a christmas tree bill. Besides the address space expansion, it shoves down our throat a bunch of fundamental changes that noone asked for (and are not supported at all in most SOHO and prosumer router equipment).
This is why it's much more likely that you'll continue seeing things like CGNAT instead of IPv6 - the IPv6 standard is just an utter engineering failure no matter how you look at it.
This is why it's much more likely that you'll continue seeing things like CGNAT instead of IPv6 - the IPv6 standard is just an utter engineering failure no matter how you look at it.
NAT alone is definitely worse than IPv6.
[Citation needed]
We've been using NAT and expanding it to decades which makes it an easy proof that it brings value.
IPv6 is still barely adopted and barely available in two decades after having "ipv6 parties". What does that tell you about its value?
We've been using NAT and expanding it to decades which makes it an easy proof that it brings value.
IPv6 is still barely adopted and barely available in two decades after having "ipv6 parties". What does that tell you about its value?
NAT has state that needs to be tracked for packages to be routed correctly. The state memory is limited, so at some point it will be dropped and you will get the famous "connection reset by peer" which has been plagueing the internet for the last decades.
Do the same with IPv6, omit the NAT, and you do not need to keep that state in sync. P2P applications stop being a routing/port forwarding problem and are only a matter of firewall settings. Cut away all that SIP and IPsec debugging.
Do the same with IPv6, omit the NAT, and you do not need to keep that state in sync. P2P applications stop being a routing/port forwarding problem and are only a matter of firewall settings. Cut away all that SIP and IPsec debugging.
40%-45% of Google users use IPv6[1]. I wouldn't call that "barely adopted".
[1] https://www.google.com/intl/de/ipv6/statistics.html
[1] https://www.google.com/intl/de/ipv6/statistics.html
true, though i would guess that's mostly phones and it seems to be stagnating
APNIC stats show that assigned IPv6 /32 prefixes are still growing YoY. Wouldn't call that stagnating.
https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv...
https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv...
was referring to the google stats, which seems to be approaching 50% v6
And those phones are behind an equivalence of CGNAT so the whole dream of "no NAT" is utterly not true for most IPv6 deployments.
Only for IPv4 destinations however, where there is no other way. For IPv6 destinations it's just native connectivity with no NAT.
Through a stateful firewall which blocks all incoming connections, completely invalidating "every device accessible" tenet of IPv6 and bringin zero value to the actual customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_addr...
I think it is to do with country wise allocation. I think India is seeing wide adaption of IPv6.
I think it is to do with country wise allocation. I think India is seeing wide adaption of IPv6.
I dont know. I think IPV6 is fighting momentum more than it's fighting usefulness.
It cannot gain any momentum, because website cannot switch to IPv6: they can only support it as well, but they cannot get free of the burden of IPv4.
In other words, from a website point of view, IPv6 is useless.
Meh. My website server is IPv6-only (out of necessity; my IPv4 is CGNATed) and Cloudflare handles the IPv4 for me.
If IPv6 is truly useless you wouldn't be able to visit my site at all, since Cloudflare is unable to make contact with the origin server.
If IPv6 is truly useless you wouldn't be able to visit my site at all, since Cloudflare is unable to make contact with the origin server.
It can though.
This. It's a massive chicken-and-egg problem, and it's far more of a problem for those without the resources to influence things than the big influential organisations. What it means is that IPv6 doesn't get adopted, and where/when it is adopted, it's stymied by the fact that other parts of the network aren't adopting it, as well as generally lower usage meaning it far more frequently is subtly broken without being fixed. (residential ISPs I think are the biggest culprit: that means there's no customers on ipv6 so there's no reason for websites to adopt it, and it's still suicide to go ipv6-only. But of course with no ipv6-only websites there's no pressure for ISPs to support it, and with a lot of websites lacking ipv6 newer ISPs without the address space can't go IPv6-only and get any customers, so hacks like CGNAT are still mandatory. And so the kinda-working status quo makes moving to the properly-working system much harder).
> It's a massive chicken-and-egg problem
This was known since the incipit, still we moved on <facepalm/>.
> And so the kinda-working status quo makes moving to the properly-working system much harder.
It's called evolution: there is no "properly-working system" unless it works at every stage. If it is at disadvantage in an intermediate stage, it will never be selected.
This was known since the incipit, still we moved on <facepalm/>.
> And so the kinda-working status quo makes moving to the properly-working system much harder.
It's called evolution: there is no "properly-working system" unless it works at every stage. If it is at disadvantage in an intermediate stage, it will never be selected.
I don't know how accurate this is.
I don't think there's any evidence that things have to be evolved in the tech world.
paradigm shifts happen all the time.
I don't think there's any evidence that things have to be evolved in the tech world.
paradigm shifts happen all the time.
New paradigms happen from time to time. Paradigm shifts are rare, though.
Look, all the good of OOP has not obliterated C. All the excellence of functional programming has not even made a dent in OOP adoption. Hell, COBOL is still running fine!
Paradigm adoption is a matter of evolution: the fittest survives. When IPv6 will offer an immediate advantage to its users, people will switch to it. Until then, it is confined to those companies who are betting on it, other companies who have some spare money and prefer to spend it rather than have it taxed, and the stereotypical nerds who haven't anything more interesting to ponder about.
Look, all the good of OOP has not obliterated C. All the excellence of functional programming has not even made a dent in OOP adoption. Hell, COBOL is still running fine!
Paradigm adoption is a matter of evolution: the fittest survives. When IPv6 will offer an immediate advantage to its users, people will switch to it. Until then, it is confined to those companies who are betting on it, other companies who have some spare money and prefer to spend it rather than have it taxed, and the stereotypical nerds who haven't anything more interesting to ponder about.
You named some examples of non-paradigm shifts which also exist but there are plenty of examples of paradigm shifts. TCP/IP for example. LLM's. The Iphone. CRISPR. I could go on.
My point is paradigm shifts happen quite often. Evolution happens as well but is by no means the ONLY way as you're claiming.
My point is paradigm shifts happen quite often. Evolution happens as well but is by no means the ONLY way as you're claiming.
> If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it. At some point we will have to admit we made a big mistake.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" is probably the correct way. Amazon is surely aware of IPv6 but if everybody who is on IPv6 can be tunneled through IPv4 to your storefront why bother changing the site?
The new technology doesn't have to _just_ be better than the current one to cause adoption. It needs to be so much better that its worth adopting. Although judging from the fact that tiktok is on the list; it seems like new-er websites do not consider IPv6 to be better than IPv4.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" is probably the correct way. Amazon is surely aware of IPv6 but if everybody who is on IPv6 can be tunneled through IPv4 to your storefront why bother changing the site?
The new technology doesn't have to _just_ be better than the current one to cause adoption. It needs to be so much better that its worth adopting. Although judging from the fact that tiktok is on the list; it seems like new-er websites do not consider IPv6 to be better than IPv4.
Yes, NAT was a mistake.
We may discuss the past, if you wish, but the present is what matters. And, today, NAT is, and IPv6 is not.
Lolwut?
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Addresses: 2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8b
2607:f8b0:4002:c00::66
2607:f8b0:4002:c00::65
2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8a
74.125.136.100
74.125.136.138
74.125.136.101
74.125.136.113
74.125.136.102
74.125.136.139Actually, IPv6 is! Just that you are not using it doesn't mean half of the internet isn't using IPv6 right now.
IPv6 behind an equivalence of NAT is. :D
You seem to be conflating a stateful firewall with a NAT. Unless you really need to, you're never doing NAT on ipv6.
No, we're not doing NAT, but the devices aren't really accessible from the wide web either. In this case "NAT" is just an implementation detail and getting rid of it didn't bring any of the benefits IPv6 promised.
> No, we're not doing NAT, but the devices aren't really accessible from the wide web either.
Which is a policy issue (implemented through rules on a firewall), and not an inherent limitation of the technology (like NAT is).
Which is a policy issue (implemented through rules on a firewall), and not an inherent limitation of the technology (like NAT is).
that or it was an inevitable and powerful scaling technology that enables a double-digit billion number of devices to communicate using only 3B addresses
Scaling and NAT shouldn't be put together.
yet here we are
Yes, here we are, spending many, many thousands of dollars unnecessary:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
[…]
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
[…]
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
> It's been what, over twenty years now?
If there wasn't a flag day for IP (1983-01-01) I'm sure there would have been people still insisting on using NCP.
It took several decades' worth of experience to go from NCP to IP, and now that we've had experience with IPv4, it's worth moving towards IPv6.
> If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it.
It is useful for some people. It is not useful for others: like newly-started ISPs who can't get / afford IPv4 allocations for their millions (tens of, or hundreds of, in many APAC countries) of users and are left with paying for CG-NAT to reach many parts of the Internet. (And then their users have to double-NAT IPv4 to run their local networks, which breaks all sorts of things).
The fact that the early adopters / 'legacy' folks in some parts of the world lucked out on allocations does not mean IPv4, with its limited 32-bit address space, is "useful".
If there wasn't a flag day for IP (1983-01-01) I'm sure there would have been people still insisting on using NCP.
It took several decades' worth of experience to go from NCP to IP, and now that we've had experience with IPv4, it's worth moving towards IPv6.
> If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it.
It is useful for some people. It is not useful for others: like newly-started ISPs who can't get / afford IPv4 allocations for their millions (tens of, or hundreds of, in many APAC countries) of users and are left with paying for CG-NAT to reach many parts of the Internet. (And then their users have to double-NAT IPv4 to run their local networks, which breaks all sorts of things).
The fact that the early adopters / 'legacy' folks in some parts of the world lucked out on allocations does not mean IPv4, with its limited 32-bit address space, is "useful".
If the parent comment can stay on top, then I will be amazed.
Best use of IPv6 I have seen is in cjdns.
Where are all the other examples of peer-to-peer connectivity using IPv6.
Personally I do not want peer-to-peer connection with websites doing surveillance, data collection, tracking and advertising, or other commercial entities. I do want connections with other internet users. But that cuts out so-called "tech" companies, intermediaries that have nothing to offer except middleman services. Hence there is a conflict of interest in that the benefits I could see for IPv6 (e.g., cut out the middleman) and the benefits of IPv6 to the advocates trying to shame people into adopting it (e.g., people who work for middlemen) are mutually exclusive.
Best use of IPv6 I have seen is in cjdns.
Where are all the other examples of peer-to-peer connectivity using IPv6.
Personally I do not want peer-to-peer connection with websites doing surveillance, data collection, tracking and advertising, or other commercial entities. I do want connections with other internet users. But that cuts out so-called "tech" companies, intermediaries that have nothing to offer except middleman services. Hence there is a conflict of interest in that the benefits I could see for IPv6 (e.g., cut out the middleman) and the benefits of IPv6 to the advocates trying to shame people into adopting it (e.g., people who work for middlemen) are mutually exclusive.
Yeah and instead of shaming peepz, provide useful guides. At the same time if a thing is overly complex, then it's a smell, that's best avoided.
> if a thing is overly complex
So is ipv4, but most people have the benefit of learning it piecewise over a decade+.
When I do networking root cause investigations involving v4, I still get glazed over looks from professionals that don’t specialize in net, but in that case they blame their own knowledge. If it’s v6 it’s the protocol’s fault they don’t know it.
So is ipv4, but most people have the benefit of learning it piecewise over a decade+.
When I do networking root cause investigations involving v4, I still get glazed over looks from professionals that don’t specialize in net, but in that case they blame their own knowledge. If it’s v6 it’s the protocol’s fault they don’t know it.
IPv4 is like legacy code that got extended and dependencies added. Everybody is using it, because everybody is kind of comfortable with it and it mostly works/ people know all the workarounds for its quirks.
IPv6 is like the same code with a major refactor. One of the big unwieldy databases (NAT) was dropped because it turns out you don't need it if the system is smarter overall. Also, autoconfiguration works reasonably well now. For most usecases the subnetting also got much easier as you can just slap a /64 on any realistic network without hesitation. You just have to do a relatively small step to use it.
IPv6 is like the same code with a major refactor. One of the big unwieldy databases (NAT) was dropped because it turns out you don't need it if the system is smarter overall. Also, autoconfiguration works reasonably well now. For most usecases the subnetting also got much easier as you can just slap a /64 on any realistic network without hesitation. You just have to do a relatively small step to use it.
You are describing the client point of view. But, from the server point of view, IPv6 is like a newer, better version... that cannot run alone!
IPv6 can work side by side with IPv4 on the servers, but it cannot replace IPv4. Thus, don't act surprised when companies wonder "Why bother?"!
IPv6 can work side by side with IPv4 on the servers, but it cannot replace IPv4. Thus, don't act surprised when companies wonder "Why bother?"!
> IPv6 can work side by side with IPv4 on the servers, but it cannot replace IPv4.
Facebook is famously IPv6-only internally (and as of 2016, 60% of user traffic was IPv6-only):
* https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas...
* https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU_24f6Wr7E
Microsoft and Google are IPv6-only single-stack (or moving in that direction) on their internal corporate networks:
* https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8
Also Wells Fargo:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4
The main 'advantage' IPv4 has is inertia.
Facebook is famously IPv6-only internally (and as of 2016, 60% of user traffic was IPv6-only):
* https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas...
* https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU_24f6Wr7E
Microsoft and Google are IPv6-only single-stack (or moving in that direction) on their internal corporate networks:
* https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8
Also Wells Fargo:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4
The main 'advantage' IPv4 has is inertia.
> The main 'advantage' IPv4 has is inertia.
That's correct, but it was an idiocy to underestimate it. Reality always wins.
That's correct, but it was an idiocy to underestimate it. Reality always wins.
You can run "IPv6-mostly". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40039899
NAT is more like the add-on that most network operators don’t decide to employ for IPv6-only networks anymore, but NAT by itself is not part of IPv4. You can NAT IPv6 networks perfectly fine - but for IPv4 it is often a necessary evil when private network ranges overlap or you need to represent a single IP to the outside world.
Apparently not useful enough to make it happen.
Tell that to T-Mobile US:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE
Wells Fargo:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4
Microsoft:
* https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo
Google:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8
LinkedIn (pre-Microsoft):
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ukwR86BClY
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE
Wells Fargo:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzTWjNUb4H4
Microsoft:
* https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-...
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd0vgU6WbPo
Google:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb98hAb5_W8
LinkedIn (pre-Microsoft):
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ukwR86BClY
At this point, we should make IPv6 a mandatory standard. Please EU, make it happen!
Not sure if this is an urban legend or not, but I recall reading somewhere that for many big companies, going IPv6 is simply not possible at this time. I can't remember if it was a leaked memo from AWS or another one of the giants, but their analysis was essentially that they would need to buy all the global stock for certain types of routers to do the migration from where they are right now.
Given AWS charges extra for IPv4 these days and is IPv6 by default, either it's an old memo or not AWS.
That would be an incredible overreach for the EU, beyond anything it's ever attempted before. It would also be directly interceding in engineering standards, without there even being an overall, enforceable standards body (RFCs aren't mandated standards).
Really the dollar speaks here. If ipv6 is a real requirement, than companies not supporting it will be hurt fiscally.
Taking a step back, one might consider how incredibly... unwanted and unwieldy ipv6 is. It's just a pain to deal with. Pundits will say "Oh, it's easy!". Great. Now explain why something touted as utterly simplistic and with supposedly zero issues rolling out, and is cited as having immense upside, has its adoption fought by companies which have top tier talent working for them.
Sure. It's all that top tier talent that's wrong. They're confused. It's not ipv6.
Really the dollar speaks here. If ipv6 is a real requirement, than companies not supporting it will be hurt fiscally.
Taking a step back, one might consider how incredibly... unwanted and unwieldy ipv6 is. It's just a pain to deal with. Pundits will say "Oh, it's easy!". Great. Now explain why something touted as utterly simplistic and with supposedly zero issues rolling out, and is cited as having immense upside, has its adoption fought by companies which have top tier talent working for them.
Sure. It's all that top tier talent that's wrong. They're confused. It's not ipv6.
The Czech government mandates IPv4 to be turned off by 6/6/2032 for the official institutions and it will probably involve state companies too. https://konecipv4.cz/en/
IPv4 hurts innovation by basically charging for numbers more than an administrative fee hindering newcomers to enter the market. Everybody suffers a little because of the networking effect. However, IPv4 seems to be a pain for the big companies too. Some, like e.g. Facebook are really pushing it.
With the supposedly "top tier talent" why does e.g. Azure have such a bad IPv6 implementation? Why is Cloudflare or big parts of GitHub IPv4-only? Isn't that meant for developers? What about e.g. Twitter?
The biggest problem is not the infrastructure. All the important programs like DNS servers, operating systems and hardware do support IPv6 more or less for the last 10-15 years well enough. The problem is developers that are stuck in IPv4 mentally, doing GUI windows, that only accept IPv4, only testing on IPv4, specifying database columns to hold only IPv4 etc.
IPv4 hurts innovation by basically charging for numbers more than an administrative fee hindering newcomers to enter the market. Everybody suffers a little because of the networking effect. However, IPv4 seems to be a pain for the big companies too. Some, like e.g. Facebook are really pushing it.
With the supposedly "top tier talent" why does e.g. Azure have such a bad IPv6 implementation? Why is Cloudflare or big parts of GitHub IPv4-only? Isn't that meant for developers? What about e.g. Twitter?
The biggest problem is not the infrastructure. All the important programs like DNS servers, operating systems and hardware do support IPv6 more or less for the last 10-15 years well enough. The problem is developers that are stuck in IPv4 mentally, doing GUI windows, that only accept IPv4, only testing on IPv4, specifying database columns to hold only IPv4 etc.
It's because they do not reap the benefits of ipv6 nor do they bear the burden of continuing to use ipv4. Those sites are big enough that they can simply rely on the fact providers ensure their customers can reach those sites. They could be using the OSI protocol and providers would still find a way to tunnel their customers to those servers.
The cost of ipv4 is ultimately being paid for by customers in the form of higher fees for their internet subscriptions. And this is exactly a case where the government can help the market operate more efficiently by demanding standardization.
The cost of ipv4 is ultimately being paid for by customers in the form of higher fees for their internet subscriptions. And this is exactly a case where the government can help the market operate more efficiently by demanding standardization.
I don't believe it's a talent/skill issue. It's a business issue. IPv6 is easy to deprioritize in the daily course of business because there remains a working alternative.
Is there really something wrong with IPv6? Isn't this just another case of resistance to change and the envisioned cost of it vs the benefits? I think it's just a matter of (even more) time.
Only regulated markets can be free markets. I don't really want to see more pathological cartels forming around internet access.
Amen, brother. Fact is, all critical limitations with IPv4 were hacked around by necessity, so the average user doesn’t care.
The main failure case is that it’s a painful or possibly impossible to setup your own public internet server from home, but ISPs are probably happy about that and games have figured out a work-around.
If IPv6 was a project at work, it would probably get killed as not a priority.
The main failure case is that it’s a painful or possibly impossible to setup your own public internet server from home, but ISPs are probably happy about that and games have figured out a work-around.
If IPv6 was a project at work, it would probably get killed as not a priority.
My ISP Ziggo only supports IPv6 if I use their crummy CPE device. I want to use my own router, so no IPv6 for me.
Does Ziggo support IPv6?
This is one example, but there are many where we need to investigate more than just, "Does my ISP support IPv6?"
Does Ziggo support IPv6?
This is one example, but there are many where we need to investigate more than just, "Does my ISP support IPv6?"
Can you put it in modem mode?
At this point, we should just accept we were wrong and bury IPv6 six feet under.
What's your alternative?
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ipv6 rollout is well in progress. AWS started charging extra for IPv4 ips. 32 bits is not enough. According to that site India is 70% ipv6
Websites should have the easier time providing ipv6. In the past they could keep it simpler because users weren't on ipv6, & often that was because ISPs have dragged their feet. That's changing
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ipv6 rollout is well in progress. AWS started charging extra for IPv4 ips. 32 bits is not enough. According to that site India is 70% ipv6
Websites should have the easier time providing ipv6. In the past they could keep it simpler because users weren't on ipv6, & often that was because ISPs have dragged their feet. That's changing
I do not really understand the issue. Is it because IPv6 is vary hard ?
I still wonder why they did not enhance IPv4 by adding more digits. Maybe that would have been easier ?
The phone company did that 50 years ago. When I was a kid we only needed to dial 5 numbers for local, 7 for long distance with a 1. As time went on, additional digits were added.
I still wonder why they did not enhance IPv4 by adding more digits. Maybe that would have been easier ?
The phone company did that 50 years ago. When I was a kid we only needed to dial 5 numbers for local, 7 for long distance with a 1. As time went on, additional digits were added.
IPv6 added more digits, maybe too many... But it also fixed some weirdness of IPv4. Mostly being sensible upgrades aiming for less manually configured networks.
Adding more digits sounds simple, but there is no good room in IPv4 packet. And then any solution using existing one would not anyways be backwards compatible. So for each round of new byte you add to header you would have different version anyway. Requiring new hardware and software.
Adding more digits sounds simple, but there is no good room in IPv4 packet. And then any solution using existing one would not anyways be backwards compatible. So for each round of new byte you add to header you would have different version anyway. Requiring new hardware and software.
it brings different pain points and constraints and hence requires reorganization and thinking.
there are no "additional bits" left to use and it would also require cosiderable effort to implement
there are no "additional bits" left to use and it would also require cosiderable effort to implement
> enhance IPv4 by adding more digits
I mean, that's not too far off from what IPv6 is. The main difference, at least as far as the visual addresses go, is that IPv6 also supports letters, which drastically increases the total number of addresses beyond what extending the number of characters would do.
I think part of the idea was that, since transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be difficult, we might as well make it worthwile be ensuring that another transition never needs to happen again for the forseeable future.
I mean, that's not too far off from what IPv6 is. The main difference, at least as far as the visual addresses go, is that IPv6 also supports letters, which drastically increases the total number of addresses beyond what extending the number of characters would do.
I think part of the idea was that, since transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be difficult, we might as well make it worthwile be ensuring that another transition never needs to happen again for the forseeable future.
And then what? Invent a new standard that also won't be adopted? Make it so in the future a public IP is like owning a home?
IPv6 is the only viable path forward. There are no redos here. Saying IPv6 can't work is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand.
IPv4 space has run out. Any solution that add more space requires full adoption from client on the planet.
The thing is, IPv6 only clients can reach IPv4 only services. It's why these services don't advertise v6, they don't technically need to even if some clients would be better off.
But an IPv6 only service _can not_ be accessed by an IPv4 only client.
These limitations are true for any possible alternative to IPv6.
We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future.
IPv6 is the only viable path forward. There are no redos here. Saying IPv6 can't work is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand.
IPv4 space has run out. Any solution that add more space requires full adoption from client on the planet.
The thing is, IPv6 only clients can reach IPv4 only services. It's why these services don't advertise v6, they don't technically need to even if some clients would be better off.
But an IPv6 only service _can not_ be accessed by an IPv4 only client.
These limitations are true for any possible alternative to IPv6.
We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future.
Yes, invent a new standard that's actually easy enough to implement so it will be adopted.
If the USB consortium can do it, the network folks can as well.
If the USB consortium can do it, the network folks can as well.
Roughly 20-40% of the web supports IPv6, and the number grows every year.
Implementing it fully is a technical process, but it's not an impossible barrier. The real reason for the slowness is that there's little to no profit incentive to ensuring its full compatibility, in part because IPv4 is guaranteed to be (mostly) backwards compatible for decades.
It's a slow process, but it's happening. There's no need to invent yet another standard for something that's already working and will likely be good enough to last generations once it's finished being implemented.
Implementing it fully is a technical process, but it's not an impossible barrier. The real reason for the slowness is that there's little to no profit incentive to ensuring its full compatibility, in part because IPv4 is guaranteed to be (mostly) backwards compatible for decades.
It's a slow process, but it's happening. There's no need to invent yet another standard for something that's already working and will likely be good enough to last generations once it's finished being implemented.
My point is that there is no standard possible that would be easy enough to implement. IPv4 works good enough for now, but any standard trying to replace it or solve it's problems will have the same deployment issues at v6.
Nothing is going to change the fact that _any_ solution needs every router to work, needs to handle legacy v4 and new v* addresses.
There is a reason why there aren't even alternative proposals to IPv6, none of the problems that the IPv6 deployment is having can be solved by a "simpler" implementation.
Nothing is going to change the fact that _any_ solution needs every router to work, needs to handle legacy v4 and new v* addresses.
There is a reason why there aren't even alternative proposals to IPv6, none of the problems that the IPv6 deployment is having can be solved by a "simpler" implementation.
> My point is that there is no standard possible that would be easy enough to implement. IPv4 works good enough for now, but any standard trying to replace it or solve it's problems will have the same deployment issues at v6.
But that's just not true now, is it? Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes).
IPv6 isn't having problems because it's not compatible, it's having problems because they made an utter mess of how local networks works and routers most companies (and people) have aren't able to reliably deal with the complexity of what's rather easily solved by DHCPv4 on "old" networks. The fact that IPv6 decided to rework the basics of how routing works while also demanding a dual-stack deployment is the core of the problem.
If the extent of deploying IPv6 would be "we'll enable address assignment on our existing DHCP server with same rules", you'd be on mostly IPv6 right now.
But that's just not true now, is it? Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes).
IPv6 isn't having problems because it's not compatible, it's having problems because they made an utter mess of how local networks works and routers most companies (and people) have aren't able to reliably deal with the complexity of what's rather easily solved by DHCPv4 on "old" networks. The fact that IPv6 decided to rework the basics of how routing works while also demanding a dual-stack deployment is the core of the problem.
If the extent of deploying IPv6 would be "we'll enable address assignment on our existing DHCP server with same rules", you'd be on mostly IPv6 right now.
> Extending the address space didn't need a complete rework and rethink how local network routing works, removal of standard NAT and messing around with address assignment (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes).
I think the issue here is that IPv6, despite being the successor to IPv4, is actually quite old in itself; it was developed starting in the early 90's and so it's just a different idea of what the internet was going to be. NAT is more like a "hack" that developed around that time as well and has turned into the normal way networks are managed.
I think the issue here is that IPv6, despite being the successor to IPv4, is actually quite old in itself; it was developed starting in the early 90's and so it's just a different idea of what the internet was going to be. NAT is more like a "hack" that developed around that time as well and has turned into the normal way networks are managed.
> complete rework and rethink how local network routing works
There's no fundamental difference in routing. They both use trivially simple prefix routing.
> removal of standard NAT
NAT isn't "standard". NAT is a nasty kludge that people put in because they were too lazy to upgrade their software stacks. And IPv6 was defined before NAT was commonly used, in large part as a way to avoid NAT becoming common. Because NAT is a bad idea in every possible way.
Also, IPv4 is itself much, much simpler without NAT. And you can do NAT on IPv6 if you're stupid enough to want to.
Saying that IPv6 is complicated because it removes the need for a complicated hack like NAT is just insanity.
> (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes)
Those are not in any way more complicated or harder to use than DHCP4. Setting up a DHCP server to get automatic address assignment on an IPv4 network is actually harder than letting a router automatically do SLAAC to do address assignment on IPv6.
Also, DHCP is not part of IPv4, and DHCP6 is not part of IPv6. I was using and managing IPv4 networks before DHCP existed. Yes, it was a royal pain in the ass... which is why that functionality was integrated into IPv6. Which was done a protocol that's actually simpler than DHCP, although I didn't and still don't approve of the way it wastes address bits.
There's no fundamental difference in routing. They both use trivially simple prefix routing.
> removal of standard NAT
NAT isn't "standard". NAT is a nasty kludge that people put in because they were too lazy to upgrade their software stacks. And IPv6 was defined before NAT was commonly used, in large part as a way to avoid NAT becoming common. Because NAT is a bad idea in every possible way.
Also, IPv4 is itself much, much simpler without NAT. And you can do NAT on IPv6 if you're stupid enough to want to.
Saying that IPv6 is complicated because it removes the need for a complicated hack like NAT is just insanity.
> (DHCPv6, SLAAC, and all of those messes)
Those are not in any way more complicated or harder to use than DHCP4. Setting up a DHCP server to get automatic address assignment on an IPv4 network is actually harder than letting a router automatically do SLAAC to do address assignment on IPv6.
Also, DHCP is not part of IPv4, and DHCP6 is not part of IPv6. I was using and managing IPv4 networks before DHCP existed. Yes, it was a royal pain in the ass... which is why that functionality was integrated into IPv6. Which was done a protocol that's actually simpler than DHCP, although I didn't and still don't approve of the way it wastes address bits.
Look, you can bloviate about how "easy and not complicated" IPv6 is and how NAT is a cludge... but failing adoption and horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack implementation is showing the actual truth of just how much IPv6 changes and complexity hamstring the standard.
The fact that you consider SLAAC somehow equivalent to DHCP shows that - I've never seen a router (outside maybe some ciscos) where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately. That is - if SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess.
The fact that you consider SLAAC somehow equivalent to DHCP shows that - I've never seen a router (outside maybe some ciscos) where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately. That is - if SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess.
>but failing adoption
45% adoption.
>horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack
Were the IPv4 network stack _not_ buggy? Are you sure it's just not the general incompetence of network equipment people?
>where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately
What?
>SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess
What buggy mess? I'm on SLAAC and I don't notice anything buggy?
45% adoption.
>horrid bugginess of IPv6 network stack
Were the IPv4 network stack _not_ buggy? Are you sure it's just not the general incompetence of network equipment people?
>where those two could be used to achieve the same stable network assignment and configure downstream service firewalls appropriately
What?
>SLAAC actually works across all clients and they're not a buggy mess
What buggy mess? I'm on SLAAC and I don't notice anything buggy?
"45% adoption" doesn't tell about just how poorly IPv6 is actually supported on routers and home devices available to smaller customers.
> 45% adoption
After 28 years? Yeah, that sounds like failing adoption.
After 28 years? Yeah, that sounds like failing adoption.
The World IPv6 Launch Day was carried out on June 2012. 12 years for 45% adoption is certainly not bad, considering how many ancient networking equipments are still around.
Spending 16 years in development is also not an amazing look, but if we run with that - no, 45% adoption after 12 years certainly is bad. As a reference point, it looks like Cisco gear has a ~5 year process for EOLing things. So 12 years is a while, even if it was purely driven by old gear getting replaced.
Edit: I should caveat - I don't have good data on actual lifespan of networking equipment; if you can show that it's likely to live more than a decade then that would be reasonably compelling.
Edit: I should caveat - I don't have good data on actual lifespan of networking equipment; if you can show that it's likely to live more than a decade then that would be reasonably compelling.
To Google, HTTPS was at 48% adoption in 2014. [0] This is 14 years after its initial specification (RFC 2818), even longer if you take Netscape into account. And this is despite the fact that HTTPS is completely done in software, which typically gets updated more often than hardware.
I stand by my assessment that 45% adoption after 12 years is actually pretty good.
[0]: https://transparencyreport.google.com/https/overview?hl=en
(I use Google's data for both HTTPS and IPv6 stats. If you consider 3rd party data, HTTPS adoption is way worse, even to this day it hasn't topped 75%.)
I stand by my assessment that 45% adoption after 12 years is actually pretty good.
[0]: https://transparencyreport.google.com/https/overview?hl=en
(I use Google's data for both HTTPS and IPv6 stats. If you consider 3rd party data, HTTPS adoption is way worse, even to this day it hasn't topped 75%.)
The implementation you use is your own choice, not a law of nature or part of either protocol.
This is a classic responsibility-evasion cycle:
Users: We can't get equipment that supports this (or supports it well, or makes it easy), so we won't deploy it.
Vendors: Users aren't demanding it, so we won't support it.
The result is a suboptimal local equilibrium and an obvious market failure, but you invariably get loudmouths on message boards saying "Look, the Market (Peace Be Upon It) has spoken!". Gets a bit old.
The right answer in this case is probably coercive government regulation of the form "No IPv4 packet shall cross a property line", but I'm not holding my breath.
This is a classic responsibility-evasion cycle:
Users: We can't get equipment that supports this (or supports it well, or makes it easy), so we won't deploy it.
Vendors: Users aren't demanding it, so we won't support it.
The result is a suboptimal local equilibrium and an obvious market failure, but you invariably get loudmouths on message boards saying "Look, the Market (Peace Be Upon It) has spoken!". Gets a bit old.
The right answer in this case is probably coercive government regulation of the form "No IPv4 packet shall cross a property line", but I'm not holding my breath.
NAT was never intended to be so deeply ingrained in modern networking. It has overstayed its welcome.
Only for people who have no skin in the game. The actual network operators are redeploying NAT even on IPv6 installations which tells you a lot about how disconnected from reality the IPv6 folks are.
(But that was even shown when they were dreaming of deploying IPv6 without any kind of DHCP which had to be backtracked making a utter frigging mess of address assignment on networks with multiple competing approaches.)
(But that was even shown when they were dreaming of deploying IPv6 without any kind of DHCP which had to be backtracked making a utter frigging mess of address assignment on networks with multiple competing approaches.)
>The actual network operators are redeploying NAT
Who? And what constitutes "actual"? Are the netengs in FAANG actual network operators? Who aren't actual operators? Why they aren't?
Who? And what constitutes "actual"? Are the netengs in FAANG actual network operators? Who aren't actual operators? Why they aren't?
Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT).
You are changing topic. Alas.
>Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT).
[Citation needed]
I just tested with 2 cellular ISPs, and I was able to connect to the SSH service on my phone with either.
(It's mostly useless though, since whenever the phone is locked the app is also suspended, causing the SSH service to be dropped)
>Most deployments of IPv6 are mobile networks which don't actually allow their client phone IPv6 addresses to be reachable (as was the dream around getting rid of NAT).
[Citation needed]
I just tested with 2 cellular ISPs, and I was able to connect to the SSH service on my phone with either.
(It's mostly useless though, since whenever the phone is locked the app is also suspended, causing the SSH service to be dropped)
> We need people to stop trying to deny IPv6, it IS the future.
You can scream and cry as muck as you like, IPv4 IS the present. And people in general will not care until the world will work for them.
And I trust those companies to know how to cater for people's money. When, and if, IPv6 will be the right tool, they will use it. But trying to shame them on such a meaningless technicality is the equivalent of criticising NASA for the colour of the Apollo launch station.
You can scream and cry as muck as you like, IPv4 IS the present. And people in general will not care until the world will work for them.
And I trust those companies to know how to cater for people's money. When, and if, IPv6 will be the right tool, they will use it. But trying to shame them on such a meaningless technicality is the equivalent of criticising NASA for the colour of the Apollo launch station.
Is there something with it, or does it just have growing pains?
IPv4's address space is fundamentally too small, so there has to be some kind of alternative or replacement.
IPv4's address space is fundamentally too small, so there has to be some kind of alternative or replacement.
The idiocy of this site is shocking!
Why should companies care about anything not directly linked to their customers' satisfaction?
Why should companies care about anything not directly linked to their customers' satisfaction?
Starlink sometimes is IPv6 only.
.... customers are increasingly demanding IPv6, so .... ? Perhaps it exists as a useful device to point to to articulate exactly why IPv6 should be implemented?
> customers are increasingly demanding IPv6
Who? Where?
Who? Where?
Me and all users on the same ISP as mine? :)
Oversubscribed CGNATs are real. [0] Customers may not care which protocol you (as the ISP) are using, but they will definitely notice dialup-era internet speed!
[0]: https://reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_way_to...
Oversubscribed CGNATs are real. [0] Customers may not care which protocol you (as the ISP) are using, but they will definitely notice dialup-era internet speed!
[0]: https://reddit.com/r/ipv6/comments/1as8dvy/is_there_a_way_to...
I thought it went without saying, but I meant out of the normies, who? I don't know anyone outside of tech that even knows what IPv6 _is_ let alone is asking for it.
"Normies" don't know what QoS, DNS, Peering, or route tables are either, but all these things are part of a stable internet connection ...
Customers vote with their wallet. I trust those companies to know how to care about their earnings. IP version 4 or 6, is nothing more than a nerdy thing as far as revenue is concerned.
They should do like PHP and jump to IPv7
I mean, we very much did that with ipv5 already
How about ISPs? I cant get ipv6 from WideOpenWest, either residential or business-class.
Vote with your wallet if possible. A competent ISP must have IPv6. If they don't have IPv6, what else do they skip that is their job?
> A competent ISP
Oh, if only I had literally any of those to pick from. I'm American, sadly, and there is no competitive landscape.
Oh, if only I had literally any of those to pick from. I'm American, sadly, and there is no competitive landscape.
Depending on where you live, Starlink might be a better offering. They do have IPv6. If you just want to play with IPv6 but don't want to change providers, you can rent e.g. a Hetzner VM in the USA, setup wireguard/ IPsec tunnel to it with IPv4 underlay and use it to access the IPv6 internet. It has 20 TB/ month of traffic which should be enough for most testing/ learning.
I mean IPv4 addresses are “worth” around 50 USD a piece, so the whole address space is approaching a valuation of one trillion USD. This gets into conspiracy theory territory but I wonder if large organizations have a vested interest in keeping IPv6 adoption down, as they can rent out IPv4 addresses for a good price.
I’m pretty sure it’s not a large factor overall but it seems that economically it doesn’t make much sense for most existing actors to switch to IPv6 anytime soon.
I’m pretty sure it’s not a large factor overall but it seems that economically it doesn’t make much sense for most existing actors to switch to IPv6 anytime soon.
> They can rent out IPv4 addresses for a good price.
Companies are already doing it. IPXO, for one.
Companies are already doing it. IPXO, for one.
If you have IPv4 addresses, why should you be forced to give it up? Online protocols already support IPv4 and IPv6.
No need to give it up. But what about forcing you to support IPv6 as well?
i might be wrong, but i believe it's a big internal effort for these services to support ipv6 for little benefit. since most of the people are dual-stacked at the moment, they can get away with this.
Why is IPv6 designed in such a way that it is hard to migrate to?
I've no idea if my website is IPv6 compatible. When Let's Encrypt became a thing, I pushed a button on my webhost's console and I had HTTPS. It worked for the majority of devices without needing any reconfiguration. Where's the one-click solution for IPv6?
I've no idea if my website is IPv6 compatible. When Let's Encrypt became a thing, I pushed a button on my webhost's console and I had HTTPS. It worked for the majority of devices without needing any reconfiguration. Where's the one-click solution for IPv6?
I don't think you could design it in such a way that it's easier to migrate to.
It's a fundamental change at the IP protocol layer, there wasn't scope in that layer for backwards compatibility.
There's loads of transition mechanisms that were introduced, but it's not as tractable of a problem. Assumptions around IPv4 have been baked in all over the place.
Also there was more _reason_ to move to HTTPS. Virtually everything had already supported HTTPS for closing in on two decades at the point the mass rollout with LE happened. You could switch to HTTPS-only for your site without breaking it for your users because they already needed it for online banking etc.
You can't just switch to exclusive IPv6 because half your users don't even have an IPv6 connection. And virtually everyone with IPv6 has an IPv4 connection anyway so the benefit in dual stacking is nil. Unlike supporting HTTPS where at least those that supported it got the benefit.
It's a fundamental change at the IP protocol layer, there wasn't scope in that layer for backwards compatibility.
There's loads of transition mechanisms that were introduced, but it's not as tractable of a problem. Assumptions around IPv4 have been baked in all over the place.
Also there was more _reason_ to move to HTTPS. Virtually everything had already supported HTTPS for closing in on two decades at the point the mass rollout with LE happened. You could switch to HTTPS-only for your site without breaking it for your users because they already needed it for online banking etc.
You can't just switch to exclusive IPv6 because half your users don't even have an IPv6 connection. And virtually everyone with IPv6 has an IPv4 connection anyway so the benefit in dual stacking is nil. Unlike supporting HTTPS where at least those that supported it got the benefit.
Actually, dual-stacking a website has some benefits. In some countries the CGNAT boxes tend to be oversubscribed and introduce latency. Apple has observed that too and presented some numbers to developers.
Having two protocols can introduce redundancy for those that support both. If there is some routing issue e.g. because of some cable cut most clients will automatically use the faster protocol.
If you run some infrastructure, you have to dual stack only at the gateway to other networks. You can run IPv6-only or IPv4-only inside and reverse-proxy or tunnel the traffic. Running IPv6 only can save you some money in the cloud today, it is not much but for small things the charge can be in double digit percent.
If you run some infrastructure, you have to dual stack only at the gateway to other networks. You can run IPv6-only or IPv4-only inside and reverse-proxy or tunnel the traffic. Running IPv6 only can save you some money in the cloud today, it is not much but for small things the charge can be in double digit percent.
[deleted]
Let's encrypt isn't any real new technology. All it did was removing cost and fully automating all aspects of the process. Before let's encrypt certificates had to be paid by money.
The trouble with IPv6 is the hen and egg. For ISPs it's troublesome as they have to run double stack, till the last site on the Internet is converted and for site owners the trouble is they have to double stack till last ISP converted.
Doing anything backward compatible isn't an option as the trouble is I. The 32 bit address limiting number of addresses on IPv4, and any form of increase causes compatibility issues.
(Of course one could build an IP protocol closer to IPv4 with just larger address space, but transition costs would still be very similar to IPv6)
The trouble with IPv6 is the hen and egg. For ISPs it's troublesome as they have to run double stack, till the last site on the Internet is converted and for site owners the trouble is they have to double stack till last ISP converted.
Doing anything backward compatible isn't an option as the trouble is I. The 32 bit address limiting number of addresses on IPv4, and any form of increase causes compatibility issues.
(Of course one could build an IP protocol closer to IPv4 with just larger address space, but transition costs would still be very similar to IPv6)
Because it's basically the technical standard equivalent of that junior engineer going "Let's not just increase our ID column to 64-bit, but let's REWRITE IT ALL TO BE AWSOMEST.". And then the rewrite stutters, stalls and everyone finds out that they really just wanted that 64-bit ID column.
Then explain how you are gonna increase the address field in IP packages without making the resulting protocol incompatible to IPv4.
As to my current knowledge, this is not possible because any router not understanding these extensions would be unable to route packets with that extension correctly.
As to my current knowledge, this is not possible because any router not understanding these extensions would be unable to route packets with that extension correctly.
Noone here is claiming that the new protocol would be compatible with IPv4 and I'd rather you don't beat a strawman.
But there's still a gradient on how much the new protocol actually differs from the old in how networks are structured and how much work router, switch and client firmware needs to support it.
The fact that I haven't seen a single non-buggy router firmware (and I've deployed quite a few IPv6 networks) tells by itself just how overbloated the standard is.
But there's still a gradient on how much the new protocol actually differs from the old in how networks are structured and how much work router, switch and client firmware needs to support it.
The fact that I haven't seen a single non-buggy router firmware (and I've deployed quite a few IPv6 networks) tells by itself just how overbloated the standard is.
[deleted]
If IPv4 public addresses become scarce, they will become a feature that costs more than it does today and the problem will sort itself out.
That being said, I prefer shame to regulation. But both are pretty far down the list of ideal solutions.
That being said, I prefer shame to regulation. But both are pretty far down the list of ideal solutions.
Likely. There are companies that are buying up IPv4 blocks and then renting them out, treating it like real-estate speculation.
Adding a Russian bank's domain name makes as much sense as adding a North Korean one.
The main mistake hurting IPv6 adoption is and always will be that it's incompatible with IPv4 in both ways with no real solutions in sight.
Numerous solutions could've been thought up (CGNAT the entirety of IPv6 as a source behind a part of the IPv4 space and allocate a part of the IPv6 region for "legacy" IPv4 addresses for example; that way you have 6->4 backwards compatibility), but none were tried. The result is a great technology in a vacuum, forever hampered in adoption rate because it's not compatible with old sites and there's no incentive for old site operators to switch.
Shaming bad actors doesn't do anything because IPv4 vs IPv6 is largely nerd shit in terms of computer issues; your average internet user is behind CGNAT already for IPv4 so address exhaustion means nothing to them so they don't care about it.
Numerous solutions could've been thought up (CGNAT the entirety of IPv6 as a source behind a part of the IPv4 space and allocate a part of the IPv6 region for "legacy" IPv4 addresses for example; that way you have 6->4 backwards compatibility), but none were tried. The result is a great technology in a vacuum, forever hampered in adoption rate because it's not compatible with old sites and there's no incentive for old site operators to switch.
Shaming bad actors doesn't do anything because IPv4 vs IPv6 is largely nerd shit in terms of computer issues; your average internet user is behind CGNAT already for IPv4 so address exhaustion means nothing to them so they don't care about it.
What do you mean it has never been tried? That's how a lot of mobile providers and home internet providers operate today.
My provider in Germany was already using DS-Lite (native IPv6 and IPv4 is tunneled over IPv6 to CGNAT gateway) more than 8 years ago.
Mobile phones often use 464XLAT where IPv4 is translated to a region of the address space within IPv6 (the backbone is IPv6-only).
The problem is the inverse direction (IPv4 -> IPv6) since IPv4 is lacking any mechanism for forward-compatibility.
The problem is the inverse direction (IPv4 -> IPv6) since IPv4 is lacking any mechanism for forward-compatibility.
every time I enable ipv6 on my pfsense, things go wrong, some sites don't open, some are very very slow to open like amazon prime or Disney plus have problems. Something is broken at router levels and until that's fixed, I keep it off
I had similar issues (also with pfSense) during my ISP's rollout of IPv6. It seems that it was all ISP related. I turned it off and came back a few months later and it's been pretty flawless ever since. The only times it causes problems is when the ISP's v6 stack goes out, leaving us with interrupted v6 service but working v4. Doesn't seem that apps handle that situation very gracefully.
At another site I manage they have Starlink with v6 and CGNAT v4 and it's great, just plugged in the dish to the pfSense router, set up v6, and it's been ticking away happily ever since. The only problems we have are with the old devices (iot and such) that don't get V6 addresses, and have trouble with the CGNAT. (Seems like it doesn't reset long-running connections correctly perhaps, they just get stalled out. Killing the state on pfSense usually gets them working again.)
So I suspect it's more a your-mileage-may-vary situation depending on ISP than an issue with v6 or pfSense.
At another site I manage they have Starlink with v6 and CGNAT v4 and it's great, just plugged in the dish to the pfSense router, set up v6, and it's been ticking away happily ever since. The only problems we have are with the old devices (iot and such) that don't get V6 addresses, and have trouble with the CGNAT. (Seems like it doesn't reset long-running connections correctly perhaps, they just get stalled out. Killing the state on pfSense usually gets them working again.)
So I suspect it's more a your-mileage-may-vary situation depending on ISP than an issue with v6 or pfSense.
No one wants to deal with IPv6 except for the almost religious crowd that creates an endless blogspam on how YOU should migrate to IPv6 because it's awesome!. The only interaction I had with dedicated IPv6 users was when I blocked an entire /48 from our app due to high abuse rates and got very angry email from the owner that I'm stifling the global progress.
I thought the problem with the IPv6 is that it incorporates a lot of bloat compared to the IPv4.
I thought AWS was going to start charging for external ipv4 addresses on EC2 instances? Surely that has to count for something in the right direction.
The worst offenders IMO is PSN. If you have IPv6 it will just not allow you to connect to their services. Even on PS5.
IPv6 is unwieldy. The addresses are impossible to remember and hard to type. Most people don't need to do either of those things, but the people who manage systems do. There's also little incentive for consumers and businesses to switch. The only way it'll happen is if it's imposed by large network providers.
Where I see it being useful is for IoT devices, where you're never configuring them manually, and where they probably only need to speak to one endpoint.
For anything that involves manual setup, you're going to have to force me to use IPv6, because I just don't care. Voluntary adoption is a pointless endeavor.
Where I see it being useful is for IoT devices, where you're never configuring them manually, and where they probably only need to speak to one endpoint.
For anything that involves manual setup, you're going to have to force me to use IPv6, because I just don't care. Voluntary adoption is a pointless endeavor.
FWIW I really don't need to remember the IPv6 addresses of devices on my networks, DNS and my router handle that for me fairly automatically.
I can even control how I connect to the device, either by using it's hostname on the LAN, it's WAN hostname, or it's VPN hostname. This has always been preferable to me over remembering IP addresses, even in the v4 realm.
The only time v6 has ever caused me any difficulty is when dealing with services/tools that don't support it, but that's getting to be less and less of a problem even.
I can even control how I connect to the device, either by using it's hostname on the LAN, it's WAN hostname, or it's VPN hostname. This has always been preferable to me over remembering IP addresses, even in the v4 realm.
The only time v6 has ever caused me any difficulty is when dealing with services/tools that don't support it, but that's getting to be less and less of a problem even.
> FWIW I really don't need to remember the IPv6 addresses of devices on my networks, DNS and my router handle that for me fairly automatically.
You do need to remember IPv6 addresses when your network is hosed when the DNS server becomes unresponsive or returns nonsense. IPv6 adds an annoying barrier to troubleshooting. Not that you can't work around it, but it does have more friction than troubleshooting IPv4 issues.
I'm personally really torn about IPv6. On one hand, it technically is better, and for more reason than just the increased address space. On the other hand, it is more difficult to grok than IPv4. Especially because IPv6 does a bunch of magic that, if you're not on high-end networking gear, isn't logged anywhere.
> You do need to remember IPv6 addresses when your network is hosed when the DNS server becomes unresponsive or returns nonsense.
Who is going to remember the IP addresses of all their switches, routers, and firewalls even when they are IPv4-only? I have less than a handful of switches, and have no idea what the IPs are.
Document the values (Netbox, MediaWiki, private company Github doc repo) and look them up if needed. Or put the values in the hosts(5) file of your management network bastion host(s).
Who is going to remember the IP addresses of all their switches, routers, and firewalls even when they are IPv4-only? I have less than a handful of switches, and have no idea what the IPs are.
Document the values (Netbox, MediaWiki, private company Github doc repo) and look them up if needed. Or put the values in the hosts(5) file of your management network bastion host(s).
I mean... I can remember, off the top of my head, IPv4 DNS servers: 1.1.1.1 4.2.2.2 9.9.9.9 and more! Those are pingable as well which is just great when troubleshooting IPv4
I'll be damned if I can remember a single public IPv6 DNS server.
I'll be damned if I can remember a single public IPv6 DNS server.
As a sysadmin, I'd be more interested in getting DNS working internally, and then having the recursive resolvers simply following the pre-installed root hints file
* https://www.iana.org/domains/root/files
* https://www.iana.org/domains/root/servers
and bootstrapping the network infrastructure from there.
* https://www.iana.org/domains/root/files
* https://www.iana.org/domains/root/servers
and bootstrapping the network infrastructure from there.
Here is why this is relevant to anyone who's not a network admin, and why it is especially relevant to the HN crowd of tech-people:
If a server has no AAAA record, machines only connected to IPV6 simply cannot contact that server. This is fine in theory (just buy an ipv4 lolz) but in practices this means additional costs that will only go up, as the ipv4 space becomes more and more crowded. As a non-network admin, I care that services I'm a business costumer of are available to my servers, the biggest offender being GitHub. GitHub still does not have an ipv6 despite "looking into the issue" for several years, and this means that I am unable to use their services or indeed any software that requires access to GitHub for, say, updates, pulling artifacts, container images or whatever else from their servers.
It does sound like it's a bit presumptuous of me as a random IT person to demand an IPV6 out of them, but in the year of the Linux desktop, there's no reason for them not to have the infrastructure in place to simply flip a switch and be done with it, for basically free.
Of course, the big players own swathes of IPV4 space that they are able to rent out at a premium, so they are heavily disincentivized from ever supporting ipv6, as that means obsoleting their investment with no replacement, but it's bullshit that they are able to do this in the first place.
If a server has no AAAA record, machines only connected to IPV6 simply cannot contact that server. This is fine in theory (just buy an ipv4 lolz) but in practices this means additional costs that will only go up, as the ipv4 space becomes more and more crowded. As a non-network admin, I care that services I'm a business costumer of are available to my servers, the biggest offender being GitHub. GitHub still does not have an ipv6 despite "looking into the issue" for several years, and this means that I am unable to use their services or indeed any software that requires access to GitHub for, say, updates, pulling artifacts, container images or whatever else from their servers.
It does sound like it's a bit presumptuous of me as a random IT person to demand an IPV6 out of them, but in the year of the Linux desktop, there's no reason for them not to have the infrastructure in place to simply flip a switch and be done with it, for basically free.
Of course, the big players own swathes of IPV4 space that they are able to rent out at a premium, so they are heavily disincentivized from ever supporting ipv6, as that means obsoleting their investment with no replacement, but it's bullshit that they are able to do this in the first place.
For the big players, the Jevons paradox might be even stronger. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) Making their services more efficient financially might make them more accessible for things that previously wouldn't be interesting to run in the cloud. That could make them a lot more money eventually. IPv4 is not for free and it is a limited resource - that is a recipe for rising costs and missed opportunity.
Thanks to these technology laggards, a significant and growing number of Internet users are now participating in a sort of mix network [1] through their residential ISP or mobile carrier, who are using CGNAT/464XLAT at scale.
As a result it is easier to scrape a public website because the website would need to block legitimate users at the residential ISP or on the same mobile network, and this consequence is likely worse for the website than having to accept scraping. It's much harder for a website to determine that 100 requests/second from a single IPv4 address is a single user scraping away, or 100 customers each on their own phone/computer just wanting to use the website.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mix_network
As a result it is easier to scrape a public website because the website would need to block legitimate users at the residential ISP or on the same mobile network, and this consequence is likely worse for the website than having to accept scraping. It's much harder for a website to determine that 100 requests/second from a single IPv4 address is a single user scraping away, or 100 customers each on their own phone/computer just wanting to use the website.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mix_network
There is at least one comment here that mentions CGNAT and how it enables IPv4 to continue to exist.
CGNAT breaks the end-to-end principle of the Internet and 100% forces you to depend on centralized services, because you will absolutely not be able to receive unsolicited traffic on your IP without coordination/permission from your ISP or other various third parties. Yes, there are NAT bypass methods-but those methods all rely at least in some situations on an external server that relays connection requests.
Many people really don't care if the Internet becomes the next cable TV along with business tunneling services and 2 or 3 social networks and would really be fine with that.
If you don't want this to be the only choice in the future, you should start learning, using, and demanding IPv6 and really stop putting NAT on a pedestal and bitching about the long addresses.
When I set up IPv6 on my home network, I took some time and learned how to get it working with DNS, and now I don't have to type long addresses any more. I have an actual separate IPv6 subnet for guest network. It's pretty cool.
CGNAT breaks the end-to-end principle of the Internet and 100% forces you to depend on centralized services, because you will absolutely not be able to receive unsolicited traffic on your IP without coordination/permission from your ISP or other various third parties. Yes, there are NAT bypass methods-but those methods all rely at least in some situations on an external server that relays connection requests.
Many people really don't care if the Internet becomes the next cable TV along with business tunneling services and 2 or 3 social networks and would really be fine with that.
If you don't want this to be the only choice in the future, you should start learning, using, and demanding IPv6 and really stop putting NAT on a pedestal and bitching about the long addresses.
When I set up IPv6 on my home network, I took some time and learned how to get it working with DNS, and now I don't have to type long addresses any more. I have an actual separate IPv6 subnet for guest network. It's pretty cool.
This website fails to convince me
> As we edge closer to exhausting the IPv4 address space, the immense address capacity of IPv6 becomes indispensable.
No explanation why this is bad. It's harder for websites to track individual users and block them. What's not to like about this?
> Beyond the scalability, IPv6 brings along robust security protocols and superior performance, making it the linchpin for modern, efficient, and secure internet communications.
Show me one person that had performance problems with ipv4
> As we edge closer to exhausting the IPv4 address space, the immense address capacity of IPv6 becomes indispensable.
No explanation why this is bad. It's harder for websites to track individual users and block them. What's not to like about this?
> Beyond the scalability, IPv6 brings along robust security protocols and superior performance, making it the linchpin for modern, efficient, and secure internet communications.
Show me one person that had performance problems with ipv4
>It's harder for websites to track individual users and block them. What's not to like about this?
It's a double edged sword. Other websites can't track you, simultaneously that also means other internet users can't reach you.
The most obvious consequence is that to host a server, you must purchase a VPS or rent an public IP address from your ISP, and the price for a public IPv4 address is getting higher and higher.
The less obvious consequence is that you're giving up control to the VPS providers (and other centralized services).
It's rather ironic that people on HN, a website whose name literally includes the term "hackers", would support things like CGNAT which hurt hackers/hobbyists the most.
>Show me one person that had performance problems with ipv4
Me. My ISP's CGNAT gateway was temporarily overloaded during one of the holidays earlier this year. I was thoroughly unimpressed by the dialup-like experience.
It's a double edged sword. Other websites can't track you, simultaneously that also means other internet users can't reach you.
The most obvious consequence is that to host a server, you must purchase a VPS or rent an public IP address from your ISP, and the price for a public IPv4 address is getting higher and higher.
The less obvious consequence is that you're giving up control to the VPS providers (and other centralized services).
It's rather ironic that people on HN, a website whose name literally includes the term "hackers", would support things like CGNAT which hurt hackers/hobbyists the most.
>Show me one person that had performance problems with ipv4
Me. My ISP's CGNAT gateway was temporarily overloaded during one of the holidays earlier this year. I was thoroughly unimpressed by the dialup-like experience.
Fair points, especially the one about harming hackers. I am already behing a CGNAT and I got used to not being able to selfhost, I guess that's why I didn't think about this in the first place. It's true this is a huge issue
The question answers itself: No IPv6 because apparently Amazon, Azure, Twitter, and all the others on the list are doing great without it.
When I turn IPv6 off and everything starts working normally again on my home network, it's a safe bet I'm not going to troubleshoot what the real issue is. Sure, misconfiguration at my ISP probably, but if you think I care enough to go down that rabbit hole, you don't understand how people work.
When I turn IPv6 off and everything starts working normally again on my home network, it's a safe bet I'm not going to troubleshoot what the real issue is. Sure, misconfiguration at my ISP probably, but if you think I care enough to go down that rabbit hole, you don't understand how people work.
Consumers don't care.
If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it. At some point we will have to admit we made a big mistake.