101–110 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has a date been set for when IPv4 will stop being routed?
No, because the Internet is a voluntary system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is 'they', and under what authority? If you're thinking about RIPE or ARIN, legacy block allocations predate those organisations even existing. They have no rights over that space. At the same time, IANA has delegated 'future' (read: sometime in the past, but not until after those legacy allocations) responsibility to the RIRs (ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC). Finally, how do you determine whether or not spac…
Not sure on who "they" is, to be honest. But if/when ipv4s become very difficult to obtain, lots of potential "theys" will likely emerge. Powerful companies and governments won't just shrug it off. Similar to eminent domain maybe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong interpretation: the linked chart shows client-side adoption among Google users In practice today IPv6 is a kind of high functionality NAT for consumer devices. A more interesting statistic would be server-side adoption.
"Google users" is approximately everybody, and surely client-side adoption is what drives server-side adoption?
perhaps every 'body', but not at all every 'device'..
IPv4 runout can be be pushed far into the future with DNS SRV records. This is a preventable emergency. Why it hasn't be included in HTTP/2|3 is mind boggling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not that it was a bad idea in the first place ?
Can I assume based on your username why you don't like IPv6?
One of the Perks of having Root on your countries ADMD - of and Super Root (level 7) on some of the systems
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always thought that basically the only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is the number of bytes in an address. Lately I've been learning a lot more about IPv6 and there are a TON of subtle differences in the protocols that matter if you're operating a large network. Random example I recently read about: the way link-local addresses are generated. [0] Not that this excuses inaction, but it does give me more empathy f…
What happened is they changed a bunch of things about the protocol because they thought it would be a very forced adoption. Instead, it caused lagging adoption because of all the changes. If IPv6 was just IPv4 with extra addresses, the adoption rate would have been very quick.
Ironically the techs did complain about the addresses looking funny in the Firewall logging.
What's going on with IPv6 that is preventing it from alleviating the IPv4 scarcity?
IMHO, corporate IT: "what's the business case for this?". It could be cheaper to buy IPv4 than have a company-wide (dual-stack?) IPv6 rollout: * http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190815_the_2019_ipv4_market_...
I'm curious if there are people here that have migrated their home network to IPv6 only, and if yes, what are the challenges encountered? I suspect the biggest problem is that there still are many websites that only have IPv4
Literally like the difference between HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2. Yeah not all sites use HTTP/2 yet but how often would you notice if you didn't go looking for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at the mobile telco IPv4 blocks, or lack thereof, you'll see that NAT is here, heavily, almost ubiqitously, as carrier NAT. It's destroyed the network functionality of mobile telecommunications (lacking routable ipv4) and made them essentially dumb terminals lacking any ability to participate in the 'net. They can only consume other's services.
I don't know how I feel about this. IPv6 is the obvious answer, but maybe some kind of NAT is warranted for devices that tend not to have firewalls? If each LTE terminal has a publicly routable IP, unless it's statefully firewalled, any random Internet user who can figure out my IP can run up my data bill, or packet me and inflict a Denial of Service. I remember long ago, some mobile operators in the U.S. were assign…
Taken another way: it's easier to statefully filter incoming flows (FW) than it is to statefully map flows (NAT) both from an implementation and operation perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple have made it a hard requirement for apps to operate correctly on IPv6-only connections for a few years now. If your app doesn't work unless it's on IPv4, Apple will reject it.
Pretty sure that doesn't mean all distant API endpoints need ipv6 addresses. Just means no hardcoded ipv4 or incompatible API calls. So that ipv6 to ipv4 gateways work. So, the app is ready, but apple isn't dictating much about your backend.