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

What drives IPv6 deployment?

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#11

Post by dan0- »

Slartie wrote: post #9

The outliers that surprised me the most are the big Chinese providers (ChinaNet and China Unicom) in the provider table. Despite them having much less IPv4 addresses than users, they appear to make no significant effort to get IPv6 deployed. What are they doing instead? Putting all users behind carrier-grade NAT that don't need dedicated IPv4 addresses? That must be hundreds or even thousands of users behind a single…

I would bet it is a mix of columns A & B, but maintaining logs of CGNAT must have required significant developement effort and integration between the Chinese ISPs and the state surveillance apparatus. You'd think going IPv6 would be easier than doing all that :P

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#12

Post by mirimir »

hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

Yes, I've never been comfortable with the device specificity of IPv6. Sure, temporary non-local addresses are now the norm. And they're usually not MAC-based. But still, I'd rather have IPv4 with NAT. Also, there's the issue that many VPN services don't yet route IPv6, and so IPv6 connections can bypass the VPN connection.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#13

Post by sneak »

hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#14

Post by thomseddon »

We're an ISP, most of our customers are businesses. Of those, around 50% opt for a pre-configured LAN (i.e. we do NAT and usually CGNAT too).

For the rest we provide a static IP address, so we'll allocate a /30 (block of 4), and they get a single usable address which they will assign to their own manged router/firewall.

For the majority of our customers "networking" is either handled as overflow for their in/out IT resource or often by someone remotely savvy with tech.

For most of these people networking ranges from an infrequent concern to a vague mystery that can be sorted with a bit of googling.

For most, deploying and testing IPv6 has absolutely no upside and quite a bit of potential downside, that's because "everything works" on IPv4 and configuring IPv6 is just another potential source of error.

In addition, most people who opt for this setup do so in order to expose some internal service to the internet (port forward), again there is usually zero incentive to also deploy IPv6 as they can't be sure their client device will be using v6 when they come to connect, but they know it will support v4, everything does.

And so herin lies the issue, it's chicken and egg, they know they need v4, not every server they access or client who accesses their forwards supports v6, so they _have_ to implement v4. As such they see no reason to "faff" about with IPv6, and I don't really blame them.

We're considering charging more for dedicated v4 and possibly offering a free translation service (another point of failure :() but honestly, most would just pay the extra and then just resent us a little more. Our competitors continue to acquire v4 space as we do, this is what our customers want.

Until there is v6 only content (but who is incentivised to do this?) then I can't see any incentive for these users.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#15

Post by progval »

hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

You can do NAT over IPv6 too.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#16

Post by qalmakka »

Meanwhile no ISP whatsoever in Italy has deployed IPv6 in any form or shape. We still get a dynamic publicly routable IPv4 on landline based connections, but that's it.

The ex-monopolist, Tim, has shown it's plans for IPv6 rollout almost ten years ago using DS-Lite, to no avail. It lingered around as a little known feature you can opt in if you are still stuck with an ADSL connection (it's not supported neither with VDSL, nor FTTH), that introduces an enormous amount of lag to IPv4 connections and it's arcane to set up.

Not even university campuses have IPv6, because most network administrators either do not care about it or do not know how to set it up. It sucks, and it's sadly the standard reaction this country has towards any new technology; everybody just tries to ignore new developments to delay training and setup costs, until it gets too late and inevitable to avoid, leading to rushed up deployments, skyrocketed costs and a general lack of awareness and knowledge about how it works or how it should be employed.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#17

Post by lukeqsee »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #8
lukeqsee wrote: post #2

I have the joy of living in a community with FTTH and a 1Gbps symmetrical connection for I have the pain of that connection requiring an additional $10 / month just so I can get 1 (or 4, same price) static IPv4 address which is apparently “required” for me to get IPv6. After using a HE.net tunnel for a few weeks, the slowdowns induced led me back to IPv4-only world. So even in an advanced situation, you might still b…

It’s stupid that they require a static IP. However, the cost might be somewhat justified since IP addresses are block allocated. However, $10 per month seems very high, especially if it is for a static IPv6 address for which there is no shortage nor will there be in many lifetimes.

It's quite odd (and pricey).

I asked about just IPv6 (with dynamic IPv4), and they said that wasn't an option at all. /shrug

I'm currently looking into a cheap

    FreeBSD VPS  my EdgeOS Router
but I'm having trouble getting that working fully. I'm sure I'll get it eventually. :)

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#18

Post by hjfa0j »

progval wrote: post #15
hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

You can do NAT over IPv6 too.

I depend on my ISP doing so. If I don't share a, let's say, /16 block with all the customers of my ISP, then it's not as safe as CG-NAT is.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#19

Post by BurnGpuBurn »

thomseddon wrote: post #14

We're an ISP, most of our customers are businesses. Of those, around 50% opt for a pre-configured LAN (i.e. we do NAT and usually CGNAT too). For the rest we provide a static IP address, so we'll allocate a /30 (block of 4), and they get a single usable address which they will assign to their own manged router/firewall. For the majority of our customers "networking" is either handled as overflow for their in/out IT r…

Those are basically the same reasons why I don't use v6 at home and have turned it off in my home router. Everything just works with v4. v6 is a potential source of error and/or security risk.

I haven't felt the need to learn more about v6, and it is quite complex so it'll take me a day or so to learn enough to be able to configure my network and know that I haven't screwed that up. But I keep putting that off. There's far more interesting stuff to learn and do.

I would've gladly accepted and adopted a version that's just IPv4 plus 16 bits of extra address space, and anything else exactly the same. That would've solved the original address shortage problem, and would be a breeze to configure.

For me, and I think for a lot of people, the complexity and thus cost of v6 dwarfs the potential benefits and therefore that complexity is the primary force holding back its adoption.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#20

Post by FrozenVoid »

It looks like only mobile networks are embracing the change to handles the volume of mobile devices. The evolution of WiFi/phone hardware is quite fast, so they're not stopped by anything legacy, no ipv4 only devices and no one needs static ip on mobile.
Post reply on HN