161–170 of 433 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites. They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.
I hadn’t put that quite together. I wonder how many people would value IPv6 if they knew it meant less CAPTCHAs.
The other Starlink hassle is the geocoding for user IPv4 addresses is wildly wrong. I'm in Grass Valley, CA near Sacramento but sites all think my IP is either in Seattle or Los Angeles, depending on the week. This makes streaming services a huge PITA, I have to jump through hoops to convince them I'm in the Sacramento TV market about once a month. IPv6 could help with this too, Starlink could give out more precisely geolocated addresses. Not sure they're doing it though, all I see are IPv4 addresses in the geocoding feed: https://geoip.starlinkisp.net/feed.csv
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"everything gets a global IP, no more NAT headaches" was one of marketing talking points for IPv6. Not necessarily the case nor welcomed by everyone, but that was the intent.
Wide scale deployment of NAT (the "home router" that allowed you to connect multiple devices) was the greatest leap in internet security we ever made. I remember the days when we had "everything gets a global IP," and we do NOT want to go back to that. Look up Conficker, Code Red, Blaster, etc. People naively assume the large IPv6 address space somehow hides your computer on the internet. That isn't true. Both becaus…
https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html still as relevant as the day it was written
Of course, my home network's IPv4 space uses the same 10 block as the subnets I worked with most of my time there.
China's IPv6 transition is 74% complete.[1] Conversion to IPv6 was specifically called out in China's 14th Five Year Plan, which gives the goal high visibility within the government and the Party. Conversion is quite far along. The current goal is everything IPv6 enabled by 2025, IPv4 turns off in 2030. 99% of the top 100 mobile applications in China are on IPv6. China Mobile's backbone is now IPv6 only. [1] https://…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites. They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.
I hadn’t put that quite together. I wonder how many people would value IPv6 if they knew it meant less CAPTCHAs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren’t compatible. There is a device in the middle doing a translation for you. That’s like saying HTTP can talk to FTP servers as long as there is an HTTP to FTP proxy. The only thing that makes them seem compatible is there is a well formed address space in v6 that clients send v4 requests to. But it’s still v6 and a 64 proxy needs to have an actual IPv4 address to translate the source to before sending it via…
> They aren’t compatible. There is a device in the middle doing a translation for you. The same could be said of the awful mess we have currently with IPv4 NAT almost everywhere on the current IPv4 network (and CG-NAT as well).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT is mostly okay, but carrier grade NAT where you can't forward a port causes real problems. IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.
If it was a real problem, market pricing would reflect the increasing severity of that problem. The truth is that people who care about port forwarding are such a small minority -- especially now that P2P file sharing has lost its hype -- that they don't make a visible dent in the rate of IPv4 exhaustion.