Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPv6 Deployment Status

datatracker.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#11

Post by mgbmtl »

eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

Not to invalidate your feelings, but that seems quite normal. I feel the same.

IPv6 has been mature for over 15 years and is slowly making its way. Most major LTE carriers have deployed it, most home broadband providers have the infra in place, they're just waiting to flip the switch. We're in the boring, uneventful, slow deployment phase.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#12

Post by jiggawatts »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #5
menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.

Everybody looks like they're riding on a high horse when you're lying in the gutter.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#13

Post by jiggawatts »

neilalexander wrote: post #7
eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do. I also don't think IPv6 is a "failed technology" at all. If you've used almost any zeroconf service on an Apple product recently (AirP…

Most phone companies now provide IPv6 natively over their 4G/5G service, and IPv4 goes through carrier-grade NAT.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#14

Post by zoky »

eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

I recently moved, and was mildly annoyed to find that my ISP didn’t assign me an IPv6 address. Then I remembered that, in order to get one at my previous location (same ISP), I had to call and specifically request it. That was six years ago. If they haven’t defaulted to giving out IPv6 addresses by now, it’s never gonna happen.

I honestly can’t figure out why they don’t, as it has to be cheaper to just do it than make customers call and speak to a representative, given that the technology is clearly in place already. Honestly, though, it’s been over three months and I still haven’t called, as there has been absolutely no reason for me to bother doing so. Like you, I also used to be interested in the rollout of IPv6, but now I just don’t care.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#15

Post by pantalaimon »

jiggawatts wrote: post #13
neilalexander wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do. I also don't think IPv6 is a "failed technology" at all. If you've used almost any zeroconf service on an Apple product recently (AirP…

Most phone companies now provide IPv6 natively over their 4G/5G service, and IPv4 goes through carrier-grade NAT.

This is also the reality for many DSL connections these days.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#17

Post by midasuni »

menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

Yet many implementations don’t do it and still do nat, and stateful network firewalls pretty much mean it’s meaningless anyway.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#18

Post by midasuni »

zoky wrote: post #14
eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

I recently moved, and was mildly annoyed to find that my ISP didn’t assign me an IPv6 address. Then I remembered that, in order to get one at my previous location (same ISP), I had to call and specifically request it. That was six years ago . If they haven’t defaulted to giving out IPv6 addresses by now, it’s never gonna happen. I honestly can’t figure out why they don’t, as it has to be cheaper to just do it than ma…

90% of people just care that google.com works. 90% of the rest want their office vpn to work.

The number of people asking for an ipv6 address on the average ISP can be approximated to zero.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#20

Post by mikecoles »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #5
menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.

NAT is horrible.
Post reply on HN