Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vietnam (pop. 98M) has mandated moving to IPv6, with goals for migration between 2025 and 2030: * https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/vietnam_digital_infra...
Meanwhile in Australia I called my ISP to enable IPv6 and they asked me to justify why I needed it. Because "it's the Internet" and has been a standard since the year 2000 doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to bother...
The IPv6 Transition
151–160 of 433 posts
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#152> This is the same as looking at a linear trend line placed over the data series used in Figure 1, looking for the date when this trend line reaches 100%. Using a least-squares best fit for this data set from January 2020 to the present day, and using a linear trend line, we can come up with Figure 2. > This exercise predicts that we’ll see completion of this transition in late 2045, or some 20 years into the future.…
> Anyone willing to place a bet on this? Ill bet against it. The tail on this one is going to be super long. There are embedded systems today that are shipping in things expected to last 30 years with IPv4 only. The logistics of the bet are going to be hard. I do see a world where IPv6-only becomes the default for ISPs and IPv4 becomes an add-on you pay for either from your ISP or from another via a tunnel. Does that…
Only global IPv4 matters. If in fifty years there's still a device that insists on speaking IPv4 with the address 10.20.30.40 that will still work and it still won't matter to the Internet any more than it does now.
The appropriate comparison is leaded gasoline.
In my country this was never formally banned. You can't buy a new car which consumes it of course, they banned that, but the fuel itself is legal and for a while enthusiasts would travel to a retailer which still sold it, there might be one in the next town, or the next. Of course with fewer customers the price went up, further reducing customers and squeezing more retailers out, soon enough you might have an hour's drive to buy fuel. The wholesalers were next, if you sell a tanker of ordinary unleaded every five minutes, and a tanker of "high performance" unleaded every hour, why bother making the leaded fuel that shifts only one tanker per week across the whole market? It's not even worth reconfiguring your mixers to make it. So you mark it "No longer available" and gradually across the market the retailers can't buy more and there is no more leaded gasoline.
You can make your own leaded gasoline, but the volumes involved mean it no longer makes any meaningful difference, you could make your own lead paint too, if you're crazy, it doesn't make a noticeable difference to the world.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I struggled to get IPv6 running on my home network, then had issues with DNS dual stack once I got it going, so I turned it off. That said, I think the difficulty of IPv6 is in the UI of the home routers that implement it, and a lack of sane defaults. The ISP should give every SOHO/residential customer a /60. The router of a simple IPv6 should do prefix delegation. The router should default to SLAAC for local IP addr…
>The ISP should give every SOHO/residential customer a /60. The ISP should give every residence 295 quintillion IPv6 addresses? I know there is an abundance of ipv6 addresses but that seems like a lot of waste. Even assigning a /96 would provide 4.3 billion ipv6 addresses (which is the same number as all ipv4 addresses in existence) And since available ipv6 space is basically 4.3 Billion^2, assigning an ipv6 /96 woul…
Anything larger (usually /56, sometimes even /48) gives the customers a chance to segment their LAN.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vietnam (pop. 98M) has mandated moving to IPv6, with goals for migration between 2025 and 2030: * https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/vietnam_digital_infra...
Meanwhile in Australia I called my ISP to enable IPv6 and they asked me to justify why I needed it. Because "it's the Internet" and has been a standard since the year 2000 doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to bother...
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#155There's a lot of interesting thought in the second half about what the Internet fundamentally is and where it's going. The author argues that the use of TLS and SNI has fundamentally changed the internet from a number based routing network to a network based on DNS names and SNI where the numbers involved don't really matter anymore.
> Where is this heading in the longer term? We are pushing everything out of the network and over to applications. Transmission infrastructure is becoming an abundant commodity. Network sharing technology (multiplexing) is decreasingly relevant. We have so much network and computing resources that we no longer have to bring consumers to service delivery points. Instead, we are bringing services towards consumers and using the content frameworks to replicate servers and services With so much computing and storage the application is becoming the service, rather than just a window to a remotely operated service.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I struggled to get IPv6 running on my home network, then had issues with DNS dual stack once I got it going, so I turned it off. That said, I think the difficulty of IPv6 is in the UI of the home routers that implement it, and a lack of sane defaults. The ISP should give every SOHO/residential customer a /60. The router of a simple IPv6 should do prefix delegation. The router should default to SLAAC for local IP addr…
>The ISP should give every SOHO/residential customer a /60. The ISP should give every residence 295 quintillion IPv6 addresses? I know there is an abundance of ipv6 addresses but that seems like a lot of waste. Even assigning a /96 would provide 4.3 billion ipv6 addresses (which is the same number as all ipv4 addresses in existence) And since available ipv6 space is basically 4.3 Billion^2, assigning an ipv6 /96 woul…
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whilst I agree with you, I rather depressingly suspect a lot of people equate NAT with “security”.
Only CG-NAT provides any semblance of "privacy" from the perspective of the outside world, but is a hideous technology that shouldn't exist. Normal NAT as seen with home internet routers provides zero privacy, because you still have a predictable public IP. People also think that IPv4+NAT provides security, but IPv4 is such a tiny address space that all public IPs are scanned daily by various malicious bots. Meanwhil…
I have a friend who works in the networking division of a telco in my country, their team had to spend significant time and effort educating a PM who was dead-to-rights convinced that IPv6 was “less secure” and seemed to think that IPv6 didn’t have subnets and that NAT’s were the same as firewalls and refused to be convinced otherwise.
People like that make any forward progress extremely difficult.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I've ever heard this view expressed by serious, competent network engineers. I have heard it a lot from the home hobbyist though, but I'm not sure how much that demographic matters in the grand scheme of things.
I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead! Additionally, like a sibling comment notes, a home hobbyist has full control over at least half, often more, of their addresses and can easily choose addresses for their network that are as short or shorter and easier to remember and organize vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with m…
It'd be hard to have so many devices that even in 10.0.0.0/8, you run into a need to have letters as part of the network addresses.
My home network is larger than most and I while I use multiple subnets for fun, I could it all of it into a single /24.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile in Australia I called my ISP to enable IPv6 and they asked me to justify why I needed it. Because "it's the Internet" and has been a standard since the year 2000 doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to bother...
That is a wild response to give a customer. I'm surprised they are still in business if that's how they treat fairly reasonable customer requests.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only CG-NAT provides any semblance of "privacy" from the perspective of the outside world, but is a hideous technology that shouldn't exist. Normal NAT as seen with home internet routers provides zero privacy, because you still have a predictable public IP. People also think that IPv4+NAT provides security, but IPv4 is such a tiny address space that all public IPs are scanned daily by various malicious bots. Meanwhil…
Yeah exactly. I have a friend who works in the networking division of a telco in my country, their team had to spend significant time and effort educating a PM who was dead-to-rights convinced that IPv6 was “less secure” and seemed to think that IPv6 didn’t have subnets and that NAT’s were the same as firewalls and refused to be convinced otherwise. People like that make any forward progress extremely difficult.
"A always comes with B, hence A is required to provide B" is obviously, trivially wrong, but a truly incredible number of people will dig their heels in and refuse to admit that "B can be provided in other ways".
In this case where things went wrong was that: "Before A the availability B was rare, and A requires B, and hence B become commonplace only because of A."
You can see how the association can be accidentally upgraded to an "if and only if" instead of merely "if".