41–48 of 48 posts
In US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.
The largest ISP in the USA, Comcast, has had IPv6 for a couple years now.
Or T-Mobile, which recently deployed 464XLAT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-hIyZSAmA
In US many ISPs are too lazy to move to IPv6.
More and more networks are moving to IPv6. These are just a few case studies from different kinds of networks. http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/ipv6/case-studies/ The largest ISP in the USA, Comcast, has had IPv6 for a couple years now. Or T-Mobile, which recently deployed 464XLAT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-hIyZSAmA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs could start putting users behind a giant NAT. One cable company used to do it in Brazil back in the 2000's
That's bad practice and complexifies a lot the creation of peer-to-peer infrastructures.
I don't have a good feel for the numbers involved here. Things like this always report: "We are out!... only 4,000,000 or so addressed remaining!" Four million sounds like a lot to me. Some number of the IP addresses that are counted as gone are also still unused. Can someone give me some idea of the situation with numbers that are easier to understand? Can we still limp through for a few years, or is this actually t…
It does seem a bit anti-climactic. "We're out! We only have a /10 remaining, and we'll only be handing out /24 - /22 allocations!". Which does seem an awful lot like "flowing freely" (I'd be happy with just a personal /27 myself) until you put it in context with those early non-aggregable /24 allocations in 192/8 being generally viewed as a mistake for router memory, and the subsequent move to only give out portable…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem a bit anti-climactic. "We're out! We only have a /10 remaining, and we'll only be handing out /24 - /22 allocations!". Which does seem an awful lot like "flowing freely" (I'd be happy with just a personal /27 myself) until you put it in context with those early non-aggregable /24 allocations in 192/8 being generally viewed as a mistake for router memory, and the subsequent move to only give out portable…
I set up a HE.net v6 tunnel over 4 years ago now. Sometimes, I ask myself why I bothered.
Also it's a nice backup link for NATted WAN machines in case tinc/autossh/etc accidentally goes down.
1. The governments of the world push IPv6 legislation. Everyone invests the resources needed to migrate in a few years, overall everyone's pretty OK with this.
2. Carrier-grade NAT becomes much more widespread. People who need a public IP (mostly p2p users, I guess) pay more for that. Again, overall everyone's pretty happy.
3. Gradual, failover-friendly solutions are deployed. The network becomes fragmented, this plays out like IE6. After a few years, most of the people who matter get tired of this, pull support for IPv4.
Time for IPv6 baby.
We won't see IPV6 for the next 10 years or so.
In other words, I believe the limiting factor on v6 adoption is no longer technical or interop, instead it's lack of problems with v4.