Pardon if this is an ignorant question, but could the "backhaul providers" help expedite v6 by simply adding a small-but-annoying tax on carrying v4 traffic? I know it sounds ridiculous to want to pay more, but it might help "rip the band-aid" off if, in order to keep costs down, ISPs had to pay a little more for the deprecated protocol.
The IPv6 Transition
111–120 of 433 posts
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
While legislation would be way to actually make IPv6 transition happen, what is the justification for such legislation and cost it would impose on the industry? And that is the point of this article, for most participants of the internet the benefits don’t presently justify the involved cost. Peer to peer networking is important to rare users like me so I can do things like host a private Minecraft server from my hou…
Static IP here in Australia costs AUD 5 per month for residential users… I think it’s just a price signal to entirely disincentivise it to anyone who doesn’t need it.
In the US, if you want a static IP you often need to purchase a business connection, which is usually significantly more expensive (and residential connections are already expensive), and may not even be available if you live in a residential area.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#113The premise is completely wrong here. IPv6 is not just an “incremental change” that would have represented an easy uptake. Instead, pretty much every practical detail of existing IPv4 infrastructure, both hardware and software, was broken. Massive swaths of extra management and security tools were rendered useless. It was a massive miscalculation.
In the meantime, we figured out how to make things work without the extra address space. And the dream of a point-to-point Internet turned out to be a terrible idea after all. IPv6 pushers love to hate on NAT, but it’s actually a really good design choice that’s fundamental to basic network security.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are also forced to use a seat belt. Calling it authoritarianism when we want to enforce a standard is absurd.
Seat belts have a reason. If I want to communicate with some computers using IPv4 or IPX, that’s my choice. Putting laws on what I can put inside of Ethernet is absolute stupidity
I fail to see how mandating ISPs to implement and use IPv6 is equivalent to "putting laws on what you can put inside of Ethernet"
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#115The original “end-to-end” architecture of the Internet assumed that every device was uniquely addressed with its own IP address [...]
That may indeed have been an assumption of the original architecture, but it's orthogonal to the end-to-end argument in Internet design, which is about moving logic out of the network entirely and into applications (more precisely, about recognizing that the boundary between network and application is productively debatable, and had, up to the point where Saltzer and Clark and Reed wrote the paper, been defaulting too much towards the network). An end-to-end-architected networking application can be oblivious to its addressing, or even the network layer below it.
If anything, my intuition is that the unreasonable effectiveness of CGNAT --- which is exactly what Huston is writing about --- is strong evidence that the end-to-end paper was deeply correct.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#116Asus routers still ship with IPv6 disabled by default, to this day. It makes perfect business sense, as everything still works just as well with v4 but single stack is less complexity so less support costs, etc. I’ve been running my home LAN dual stack for close to a decade, so I have native v6, but then on the other hand I ignore it for my networking stuff, ie I only set an A record in my dynamic DNS and never bothered figuring out how to make phoning home from other networks work over v6. It’s just not a priority and my lack of deep v6 knowledge would make it likely less secure.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#117If the US had the same IPv4 scarcity as the rest of the world (specifically, if major US ISPs were using CGNAT), the IPv6 transition would be happening much faster.
The addresses were allocated equally geographically, and then sold. The US will hit ipv4 scarcity when the US stops being the richest country.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, domestic ISPs in the UK are lagging on IPv6; I'm with Vrigin Media and, afaict, there is no immediate plan to deploy it either.
Germany, Vodafone. They support it, so I could get v6, but chances are that that'll switch me to CGNAT for v4, so I'm not willing to risk it.
Must be an old contract, all new contracts appear to be CGNAT/native IPv6 across ISPs
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#119When AWS started charging for IPv4 addresses I started switching to IPv6. I spent a few days getting it all up and running. I thought it was OK but my router kept crashing every day, then I noticed I can't get working from some places like my office. Gave up, never again its just not worth it. I moved to another hosting service that didn't charge.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#120People posting have mentioned that IPv4 is working for what they use the internet for. But of course it is. When NATs has been required for your whole life, how could the internet have built features that needed p2p routing? Just convince businesses to build something that requires special router configuration? And still wouldn’t work on phones or with ISPs that require CG NAT? You got what worked out of the box. You…
Why do people assume IPv6 means "easy p2p"?
Even if NAT will be gone one day, the stateful firewalls won't. Every every home router would still ship with "deny all incoming" by default, and every corporate network would have the same setting as well.
Same as IPv4, IPv6 serving would still need registration with border device, either manual by user, or via UPnP-equivalent.