Are we past peak IPv4?
sidn.nl
Are we past peak IPv4?
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#2Eh, no plans to move to v6 as someone who works on SaaS. 3.60/month is cheap for the few public IPs most need.
In my ISP/cloud provider days sure I spent a lot of time implementing v6. But it's just nowhere near worth the cost to mess with particularly when you still want/need public v4 along side.
Also, I don't understand how v6 could be responsible for these post peak prices. Most everyone still has the v4 addresses as well and no way v6 only cowboys are outpacing general growth.
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#3> IPv6 users now account for 45 per cent of Google visitors.
It's hard to estimate how increasing percentage of users with IPv6 access is impacting the demand for public IPv4 addresses. My instinct is "not by a lot", but it's interesting to think about.
Currently IPv6 does not allow you to simply do away with public IPv4 adderesses. On the ISP side that would mean providing a product that couldn't access a huge chunk of the web. On the hosting side that would mean providing a service that isn't available to a huge chunk of users. It's not viable.
But increasing IPv6 deployment could possibly reduce IPv4 demand. If you're an ISP and half of your customers' traffic is over IPv6, maybe you could densify your carrier-grade NAT setup, putting more users behind the same number of public IPs. If you're a large content provider and half of your users are over IPv6, maybe only half of your load balancers need public IPv4 addresses.
The question is - is any ISP or provider actually doing those things in response to increased IPv6 traffic?
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#4[deleted]
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#5I've always disable IPv6 on my router because I heard it wasn't secure since it was worthless to enable, and was another ingress into security. What benefits are there if any of using it?
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#6Eh, no plans to move to v6 as someone who works on SaaS. 3.60/month is cheap for the few public IPs most need. In my ISP/cloud provider days sure I spent a lot of time implementing v6. But it's just nowhere near worth the cost to mess with particularly when you still want/need public v4 along side. Also, I don't understand how v6 could be responsible for these post peak prices. Most everyone still has the v4 addresse…
I've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks.
My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work.
If we'd both been running IPv6 there wouldn't have been any IP space collision. We could just connect them together and be done with it.
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#7My issue with IPv6 is online gaming doesn’t seem to support it at all. Valorant and similar online competitive games are IPv4 only; despite IPv6 having considering upsides for real time games. I think you could get real uptake from gamers if it was supported (due to possible latency benefits, even if they’re only small)
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#8Eh, no plans to move to v6 as someone who works on SaaS. 3.60/month is cheap for the few public IPs most need. In my ISP/cloud provider days sure I spent a lot of time implementing v6. But it's just nowhere near worth the cost to mess with particularly when you still want/need public v4 along side. Also, I don't understand how v6 could be responsible for these post peak prices. Most everyone still has the v4 addresse…
I've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks. My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work. If…
It would also be very helpful if Mars had potable water and an electrical grid already set up for when we start living there.
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#9> IPv6 users now account for 45 per cent of Google visitors. It's hard to estimate how increasing percentage of users with IPv6 access is impacting the demand for public IPv4 addresses. My instinct is "not by a lot", but it's interesting to think about. Currently IPv6 does not allow you to simply do away with public IPv4 adderesses. On the ISP side that would mean providing a product that couldn't access a huge chunk…
IPv6 does allow you to have a client on any ISP to not rely on IPv4: NAT64/DNS64 is one example for a home network (my experience). There are major mobile carriers that will also disagree, and they provide an IPv6-only technical solution.
> It's hard to estimate how increasing percentage of users with IPv6 access is impacting the demand for public IPv4 addresses.
I'm more interested in this excellent point you make, about the economics. I don't think this has been thought through as well as the technology.
And can we please find additional sources other than GOOG for IPv6 adoption?
Re: Are we past peak IPv4?
#10Eh, no plans to move to v6 as someone who works on SaaS. 3.60/month is cheap for the few public IPs most need. In my ISP/cloud provider days sure I spent a lot of time implementing v6. But it's just nowhere near worth the cost to mess with particularly when you still want/need public v4 along side. Also, I don't understand how v6 could be responsible for these post peak prices. Most everyone still has the v4 addresse…
I've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks. My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work. If…
Couldn't you just expose those networks via non-overlapping blocks? Surely the entire private space wasn't spoken for.