231–240 of 496 posts
In America I've never had a non-mobile ISP offer IPv6. At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration. IPv6 will never reach the 100% needed to turn off IPv4.
Literally all we had to do was add a byte to IPv4 and we'd be done but noooo we need to overengineer the next protocol and make it as painful as possible to adopt.
Why one byte? Is that enough bytes? An extra 4 bits each for source and destination? Maxing out at 2^36 addresses? That seems uncomfortably small safety margin.
Also IPv6 addresses are ugly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.
Of all the things to regulate why bother with this one? It's not like IPv6 is better for the environment or useful to the consumer.
If I'm with a small-time ISP that has to use CG-NAT because they don't have the cash to buy/lease enough IPv4 addresses to give one to each CPE WAN interface, then using things like Xbox/PS multiplayer/P2P gaming is no longer possible. Want to host a Minecraft server? Too bad.
Are those two use-cases "useful to the consumer"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Every ISP has to pay Hurricane Electric for their tunnels, that's why it's free to you. Is there a law mandating this?
Yes, it's called contract law. If you don't pay HE, you don't get a connection to them. I forgot one detail: your ISP could pay a different tier-1 ISP, as they all interconnect. Nonetheless, your ISP pays top rates for that traffic - tier-1 routes are usually last-resort routes.
Obviously if the ISP is buying transit from HE, they'd have to pay for it, but it'd be surprising if HE was strongarming their customers by adding a clause that's like "oh also, if any of your customers use our ipv6 tunnel, we'll charge you $x/user/month" or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think routers perform their work using the human-readable addresses? If so, that is incorrect. They use the binary values. The actual difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is that IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, not 32. So you can devise whatever human-readable abstraction you like, it won't change how networking actually operates.
And there’s no reason we should be limited to 128. It’s all just so dated and stagnant. Chips can be made that dwarf that limitation, instead we’re stuck with this decade old nonsense to “work around” again. Flip flopping between “the code needs it” and “the chips need it”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While true, neither of those are relevant in context (and I even explicitly acknowledged your first bullet in my comment above). It was suggested that a website operator deploying IPv6 would somehow improve the end user experience by virtue of avoiding CGNAT and I was questioning that. I do of course appreciate that going via CGNAT to a clueless operator that eagerly adds IPv4 bans can be problematic but that's more…
> It was suggested that a website operator deploying IPv6 would somehow improve the end user experience by virtue of avoiding CGNAT and I was questioning that. Non-legacy, newly formed ISPs have to spend a lot of money on either buying or leasing IPv4 address space, and even then if they grow they probably won't be able to keep up, and so have to deploy 100.64.0.0/10 to the WAN interface of CPEs and then buy a bunch…
Isn't that literally their raison d'être? Point taken that in aggregate it increases the costs of network operators but still that's got nothing to do with an individual instance of an individual user visiting an individual website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
depends on how you look at it. Right now it's very much a tragedy of the commons. IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- because it's a lot harder to make it work rather than throwing up a TURN box and relaying everything. "The latency? Who cares? IPv6 sometimes breaks right now" - because nobody is testing it, so why should people be the fi…
>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.
How about Xbox/PS multiplayer/P2P gaming? Hosting a Minecraft server?
When Skype first came out it was P2P, but had to come up with the "supernode" concept (basically STUN/TURN/ICE) because of NAT: now all of our communication methods basically have to phone into the mothership.
Do we want the Internet to be more centralized (possibly given more power to the tech bros) or more decentralized?
First thing I do on a fresh Linux install is set ipv6 to deactivated. Fixes all my initial Linux install problems. I don't question it, it just works every time.
Something is very wrong with your network then. I never needed to disable IPv6. Maybe you should question it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You frame "not bothering" as if its a checkbox with "enable IPv6" to check and all done... Put all work into reorg, for what? Some numbers to change? Why when IPv4 works?
The corporate world tend to be easy to do, just put a gateway to IPv6 on their zScaler (or similar) exit points and done. However, that is not really needed as they are "only" consuming a few IPs around the world (for that purpose). No one in the corporate world wants to go back to the days of Public IPs on all devices. Internally the enterprises have no reason to switch as it just complicates their setups.