Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

ripe76.ripe.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#11

Post by JorgeGT »

ktpsns wrote: post #4

Maybe still ISPs suffer poor field reports. I was client at "Kabel Deutschland, Germany" and they offer native IPv6 for their customers, with "Dual stack lite" as the routing option to reach the IPv4 world. It performed poorly for me, perhaps due to bad load balancing of the IPv4-gateways. I switched to a buisness plan (+10EUR/month) of the same ISP and now have an own static IPv4 adress and not even native access to…

Same story here with Orange in Spain. Fake dual stack through barely-working CG-NAT limited to ports <2000 which many services/devices do not accept and which the router randomly forgot, and no PPTP VPN because the CG-NAT did not support the GRE protocol. Plus the joys of sharing an IP with random strangers, of course. After many clients started complaining they offered us static IPv4 plans (with no IPv6) for free (normally it costs 12€/month), instead of coming up with a better dual stack implementation.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#12

Post by ec109685 »

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down.

A few years ago, there was a mad push to have public IPv6 addresses because “soon” customers would be unable to reach your servers since they were only going to be given IPv6 addresses. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#13

Post by okket »

ec109685 wrote: post #12

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down. A few years ago, there was a mad push to have public IPv6 addresses because “soon” customers would be unable to reach your servers since they were only going to be given IPv6 addresses. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

See the slide "The Changing Internet"

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#14

Post by lmm »

ec109685 wrote: post #12

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down. A few years ago, there was a mad push to have public IPv6 addresses because “soon” customers would be unable to reach your servers since they were only going to be given IPv6 addresses. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#15

Post by ahbs66 »

lmm wrote: post #14
ec109685 wrote: post #12

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down. A few years ago, there was a mad push to have public IPv6 addresses because “soon” customers would be unable to reach your servers since they were only going to be given IPv6 addresses. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.

>Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all.

It's 2018, nobody would be insane enough to try that

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#16

Post by ancarda »

ohazi wrote: post #7

I think eventually the only thing that will have any hope of forcing proper IPv6 adoption is some popular service being made available only over IPv6. We can call it "IPv6walling."

There's 3 websites, to my knowledge, that are IPv6 only:

* https://loopsofzen.uk/

* https://42.be/

* https://ct.filippo.io/

They aren't quite killer applications though, so it won't push many to IPv6. Possibly as the internet gets larger, some hosting providers simply won't have any free IPv4 addresses left? I guess that could be solved by putting CloudFlare in front of the server to provide an IPv4 address. It's strange, I used to do that to provide IPv6 years ago.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#17

Post by toyg »

lmm wrote: post #14
ec109685 wrote: post #12

Given the wide deployment of nats, necessary because of the shortage of ipv4 addresses, the need for publicly routable ips for client addresses goes way down. A few years ago, there was a mad push to have public IPv6 addresses because “soon” customers would be unable to reach your servers since they were only going to be given IPv6 addresses. Clearly, that hasn’t been the case.

NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.

Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect.

The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little need for real addresses.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#18

Post by pietroglyph »

See slide 33, "The Changing Internet", for the most interesting insight (IMO). It basically said that when IPv6 was developed, IPs were still pretty good identifiers (it was important everyone had their own), but that now it's not so important that everyone has their own, so there's not much incentive to change.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#19

Post by lmm »

toyg wrote: post #17
lmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.

Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little ne…

> Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect.

When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages?

> The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little need for real addresses.

Existing large businesses are happy with their current ways of doing things, sure. But those have never been the early adopters. IPv6 suits the startups (anyone who's working with containers hits problems from reusing the same subnets sooner or later) and it suits businesses that have to merge existing networks. No-one wants to be first, but there will come a point where the IPv4 costs are high enough to be worth doing something about.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#20

Post by lmm »

ahbs66 wrote: post #15
lmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is an annoyance. Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. With the popular internet becoming more and more centralised, maybe it doesn't matter so much to the average end user, but there will come a point where people notice that gaming is better on ISP A than on ISP B even if you don't know exactly why.

>Peer-to-peer gaming or voicechat becomes laggy, or doesn't work at all. It's 2018, nobody would be insane enough to try that

Maybe not the big names, but it's still happening. I have at least one new-in-2018 game that I had to do some port forwarding for (Heart of Crown).
Post reply on HN