IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
theregister.com
IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#2I mean its an opinion.
The argument is somewhat thin "CDNs use DNS so it doesn't matter what the IP is"
I mean yes, that true, but it should have always been true. Dishing out raw IPs is bad anyway, it limits your flexibility (yes yes anycast exists, but if you're big enough to setup any cast, I bet you're using ipv6 internally already)
Ipv6 is here, and will slowly grow as time goes on. There will be growing pains, but its plain cheaper to run at any kind of scale. (especially now AWS are charging for public IPv4 addresses)
If you are hosting thousands of servers, and you haven't drunken the batshit K8s networking schema, then ipv6 becomes really rather practical, especially if you are giving out unique addresses to containers 10.0.0.0/8 runs out pretty quick.
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#3Geoff's post was also discussed here this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41893200
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#4I mean its an opinion. The argument is somewhat thin "CDNs use DNS so it doesn't matter what the IP is" I mean yes, that true, but it should have always been true. Dishing out raw IPs is bad anyway, it limits your flexibility (yes yes anycast exists, but if you're big enough to setup any cast, I bet you're using ipv6 internally already) Ipv6 is here, and will slowly grow as time goes on. There will be growing pains,…
> if you're big enough to setup anycast
Incidentally, if you want to play with anycast on the public Internet, BuyVM[1] will let you do that on $10.50/mo (3×$3.50/mo very resource-limited VPSes). Catching those VPSes when they’re in stock is something of an ordeal, though.
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#5I actually made the unusual decision, last year, to go IPv6-only on a small website I operate. The reason why is that AWS changed their billing policy for public IPv4 addresses. This is a tiny website that people only access on their cell phones, so I can accept an occasional inconvenience for the marginal cost savings.
I haven't heard of anyone else doing this, but I doubt I'm completely alone in trying to minimize hosting costs.
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#6I actually made the unusual decision, last year, to go IPv6-only on a small website I operate. The reason why is that AWS changed their billing policy for public IPv4 addresses. This is a tiny website that people only access on their cell phones, so I can accept an occasional inconvenience for the marginal cost savings. I haven't heard of anyone else doing this, but I doubt I'm completely alone in trying to minimize…
IF you need IPv4 for some users like me where ISPs is IPv4 only then you can use a CloudFlare or CloudFront and expose IPv4 too.
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#7I don't understand the title. What's the "but" there? IPv6 being irrelevant and moving off IPv4 being irrelevant seem like they go hand in hand, if moving off IPv4 is irrelevant then of course IPv6 is irrelevant!
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#8I mean its an opinion. The argument is somewhat thin "CDNs use DNS so it doesn't matter what the IP is" I mean yes, that true, but it should have always been true. Dishing out raw IPs is bad anyway, it limits your flexibility (yes yes anycast exists, but if you're big enough to setup any cast, I bet you're using ipv6 internally already) Ipv6 is here, and will slowly grow as time goes on. There will be growing pains,…
> 10.0.0.0/8 runs out pretty quick
16,777,216 containers, wow.
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#9The resistance to switch to ipv6, or the comfort with the ipv4-born address exhaustion remedies, only helps an internet of consumers, not an internet of peers that create and share. If you are behind NAT or CG-NAT, you can only consume, not create. You can't host a server, expose a port. You are at the mercy of the big fish.
Re: IPv6 may already be irrelevant – but so is moving off IPv4
#10I mean its an opinion. The argument is somewhat thin "CDNs use DNS so it doesn't matter what the IP is" I mean yes, that true, but it should have always been true. Dishing out raw IPs is bad anyway, it limits your flexibility (yes yes anycast exists, but if you're big enough to setup any cast, I bet you're using ipv6 internally already) Ipv6 is here, and will slowly grow as time goes on. There will be growing pains,…
> 10.0.0.0/8 runs out pretty quick 16,777,216 containers, wow.
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are thinking it would probably run out due to poor segmentation? It would be quite the interesting problem of network segmentation to run your whole service provider with thousands of customers and network out of a single 10 network. Realistically a better option was each customer gets their own locked off network and vlan level.