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

31–40 of 69 posts

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

#31

Post by the8472 »

Svenstaro wrote: post #10
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…

For the record, I'm also on the business plan (cable) with them but seem to have absolutely no troubles with IPv4 and IPv6 and I'm IPv6 native from what I can see here. Are you on DSL by any chance?

Business plans don't suffer from CGNAT

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

#32

Post by zlynx »

tzahola wrote: post #27
megous wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also customers would just think the website is offline, because browser's error page doesn't say: "You have IPv4, but you need IPv6. Call your ISP." So there'd be no: "I want this IPv6" calls to the ISP.

Just redirect your A record to youdonthaveipv6.com

If you have dual stack, any A record will get used some of the time. It's part of Happy Eyeballs.

I suppose that you could add a long artificial delay to the IPv4 service.

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

#33

Post by tormeh »

lmm wrote: post #19
toyg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

>anyone who's working with containers hits problems from reusing the same subnets sooner or later

Docker doesn't support IPv6, I think.

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

#34

Post by apearson »

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #30

I had IPv6 with Time Warner, but then they merged with Spectrum and my IPv6 magically disappeared. My networking and internet infrastructure knowledge is limited, so I have no clue why they would would be incentivized to do that. This happened some time last year. EDIT: The only reason I know this is because at some point last year I asked google what my IP address was and was surprised to find it was an IPv6 address…

I've had Spectrum for the last 4 years. I know they've been slowly rolling it out to their entire network start last year. My connection currently is ipv6 enabled. I might be they are reconfiguring your area to their own ipv4 and ipv6 standards.

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

#35

Post by ahbs66 »

bogomipz wrote: post #29
ahbs66 wrote: post #3

I don't find it surprising that they can't find a correlation between GDP/growing user base/IPv4 stress and IPv6 deployment. IPv6 deployment is a matter of politics. It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc. That's what decides whether they put a CGNAT in place, whether the…

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite…

>Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative?

If the rest of your message is true, why are the ipv6 numbers so low, if it's not because of politics?

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

#36

Post by bogomipz »

ahbs66 wrote: post #35
bogomipz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite…

>Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? If the rest of your message is true, why are the ipv6 numbers so low, if it's not because of politics?

The numbers are not so low, they've simply plateaued recently.

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

#38

Post by lokedhs »

tormeh wrote: post #33
lmm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

>anyone who's working with containers hits problems from reusing the same subnets sooner or later Docker doesn't support IPv6, I think.

It does, but it's disabled by default. Note that this option is about using IPv6 internally between containers. Even with it off, any exposed port will be both IPv4 and IPv6.

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

#39

Post by lokedhs »

Knowing what I know about how corporations are run (which is nothing more than anyone else who has worked for multiple large organisations) the ISPs are dragging their feet on IPv6 because they can get away with it and it saves them money.

I switched ISPs for my fibre connection because my previous one had an absolutely terrible IPv6 implementation. I made sure to let them know why they lost me as a customer, but it's very likely that never happened to them before or since.

I think IPSs can get away with horrible service and abominations like CGNAT for quite some time before it gets so bad that IPv6 gets properly deployed.

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

#40

Post by daurnimator »

bogomipz wrote: post #29
ahbs66 wrote: post #3

I don't find it surprising that they can't find a correlation between GDP/growing user base/IPv4 stress and IPv6 deployment. IPv6 deployment is a matter of politics. It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc. That's what decides whether they put a CGNAT in place, whether the…

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite…

I've heard that a lot of ISPs in Australia are stuck on IPv4 as their whole billing systems (written in early 2000s) use IPv4 addresses for everything. Including techniques like mapping an array of size 2^32 (entirely possible with virtual addresses) to keep counters for each user. It would be a complete rewrite of their billing systems to work with IPv6, and they no longer have many/any programmers on staff.
Post reply on HN