For me, there is just one thing that prevents me from switching completely to IPv6: Github.
Really? Each and every other thing you need already does IPv6?
Hacker news is not even v6 ready
Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
21–30 of 154 posts
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#22Decades from now, the story of IPv6 will be a cautionary tale about the danger of ignoring incentives when enhancing open standards.
So much of the spec seems to have been designed in an idealist vacuum that the promoters are blind to its own failures. The addresses are ugly and impossible to memorize but that shouldn't matter because... There are no performance advantages but that was out of scope because... There are few security advantages because that wasn't a core goal because...
I'm not saying that we should give up on IPv6. But we should acknowledge that its slow adoption is entirely due to a standard that was poorly designed for the real needs of critical stakeholders and poorly marketed to everyone else.
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#23I wonder if anyone has tried making their home network IPv6 only? How did that work out for you?
The reason I ask is (as described in the article) I've nearly run out of RFC1918 space because of dozens of machines, gadgets and many more virtual machines. (For complicated reasons to do with the VPN routing, I cannot use 10.x).
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#24I see IPv6 as a privacy issue.
It will enable clients to be individually identified without needing to rely on cookies and fingerprinting anymore.
NAT is great in that it obscures individual machines without too much lose of functionality.
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#25Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#26Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Each and every other thing you need already does IPv6?
Hacker news is not even v6 ready
In fact, it is eye-opening to disable IPv4 when you have native IPv6. So little works. It is not painful, it is totally unusable. Today, in 2018, a few months away from the 20th birthday of IPv6.
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#28I wonder if anyone has tried making their home network IPv6 only? How did that work out for you? The reason I ask is (as described in the article) I've nearly run out of RFC1918 space because of dozens of machines, gadgets and many more virtual machines. (For complicated reasons to do with the VPN routing, I cannot use 10.x).
Can't use 172.16.0.0/12 either? That's over 1m hosts. You don't have 1m hosts unless your homelab is actually a large domestic ISP.
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#29I wonder if anyone has tried making their home network IPv6 only? How did that work out for you? The reason I ask is (as described in the article) I've nearly run out of RFC1918 space because of dozens of machines, gadgets and many more virtual machines. (For complicated reasons to do with the VPN routing, I cannot use 10.x).
Can't use 172.16.0.0/12 either? That's over 1m hosts. You don't have 1m hosts unless your homelab is actually a large domestic ISP.
Either way I'd have to renumber everything. If I'm going to do that why wouldn't I just go straight to IPv6? I already have IPv6 on my home network (but everything has an IPv4 primary address and name resolution always resolves to IPv4); and an IPv6-supporting ISP. The question is if it's a good idea to go IPv6 only for some or all machines, and how to deal with the IPv4IPv6 issues.
Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption
#30Decades from now, the story of IPv6 will be a cautionary tale about the danger of ignoring incentives when enhancing open standards. So much of the spec seems to have been designed in an idealist vacuum that the promoters are blind to its own failures. The addresses are ugly and impossible to memorize but that shouldn't matter because... There are no performance advantages but that was out of scope because... There a…
There is one performance advantage, IPv6 requires one fewer checksum calculation on each packet.