4 ms·

I don't think we will see IPv6 eliminating IPv4 within the next 10 years. As long as IPv6 is used in parallel there is really no advantage since IPv4 depletion

by nik736 9y ago

I don't think we will see IPv6 eliminating IPv4 within the next 10 years. As long as IPv6 is used in parallel there is really no advantage since IPv4 depletion is still an issue and you need to use both. Since switching and routing IPv6 is more expensive the current hardware in use won't even be able to handle all the load and until every switch and router (at home and in the datacenter) is replaced 10 years will go by in no-time. Also, most people who ask for IPv6 for their VMs or whatever don't even have any use for it. IPv6 will be a huge mess, if I only think about sending emails via IPv6, how should that even work properly?

Aaron1011 9y ago
> IPv6 will be a huge mess, if I only think about sending emails via IPv6, how should that even work properly? Can you clarify what you mean by that?
rjsw 9y ago
Routing IPv6 can be less expensive as you need to do one checksum fewer than for IPv4. Email works fine.
- nik736 9y ago
  Email works fine technically for sure. But what about handling things like spam? How are projects like spamhaus supposed to work with nearly infinite IPv6 addresses? This is extremely hard with IPv4 already, it will be a huge mess with IPv6.
  - flyinghamster 9y ago
    IPv6 blacklists seem to be based on /64 prefixes rather than individual addresses. That hit me when I was enabling an IPv6 MX on a VPS; I had to get my own /64 prefix rather than use the standard default single address, since the default lied within a spammer-contaminated /64 block. I know it seems rather excessive to use an entire /64 and only populate a few addresses, but I'd rather have too many addresses available than too few.
    - cm2187 9y ago
      But how do you know you should use a /64 mask? One of my hosting providers assigns much smaller subnets. Some others assign /56. You are at risk of blocking many legitimate IPs and missing many others.
      - profmonocle 9y ago
        > But how do you know you should use a /64 mask? One of my hosting providers assigns much smaller subnets. It's baked into the standard that IPv6 networks shouldn't be smaller than /64. If a provider is disregarding the standard so blatantly I would probably avoid them. Really, why on earth would a cloud provider be so stingy with IPv6 that they'd give less than a /64 per customer? ARIN gives out /32s like candy and a single /32 can be split into ~4.3 billion /64s.
        dingo_bat 9y ago
        /32 is like you can build your own entire internet!
        daurnimator 9y ago
        Sadly the ISP for internet to our office building only gave out a /65... that we are meant to share with ~20 companies. Suffice to say I've got IPv6 to the internet gateway, but no further. => They fulfilled their contractual obligation to "provide ipv6 connectivity", while being entirely useless. They'll probably use us as a stat to prove that no one wants ipv6 anyway... There is no choice in provider.
        cm2187 9y ago
        But why /65 is such a big deal? You can divide it in 32 different /70 subnets, one per company. That still leave you with 2^58 IPs by company. You can still even use MAC addresses in your IPs.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  - jazoom 9y ago
    Good. It should have always been based on the domain anyway.
  - munin 9y ago
    The blacklists would probably just expand to subnets.
joecool1029 9y ago
>I don't think we will see IPv6 eliminating IPv4 within the next 10 years. There are large ISP's that already have for the most part gone ipv6-only. Here's T-Mobile USA's roadmap: http://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/04-IPv6-NAv6TF-Langerholm-1.pdf http://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/04-IPv6-NAv... Apple has already required all apps to support ipv6-only on iOS for some time. I think it's going to be a lot less rocky than you think.
xorcist 9y ago
> Since switching and routing IPv6 is more expensive This was true for the first generation of products which weren't designed with v6 in mind. I don't think it's necessarily true anymore. The fixed length fields and much easier routing tables should lead to less complex hardware. (Not that it matters since everyone is dual stacked for the forseeable future.)
bluGill 9y ago
Completely eliminated - of course not. There will be the odd medical device, a couple labs, or "grandma" with old hardware. However practically eliminated is possible, even likely. ISPs are moving that way, we are out of IPv4 addresses and all. Eventually penetration will be large enough that some smaller servers will decide that having an ipv4 presence isn't worth it. Probably because the ipv4 static address costs money and ipv6 is cheaper.
cm2187 9y ago
I have a use for IPv6 in VMs: setting up IPSec between my machines which require a dedicated IP. Expensive luxury with IPv4, no brainer with IPv6.

by nik736 9y ago

Aaron1011 9y ago

> IPv6 will be a huge mess, if I only think about sending emails via IPv6, how should that even work properly? Can you clarify what you mean by that?

rjsw 9y ago

Routing IPv6 can be less expensive as you need to do one checksum fewer than for IPv4. Email works fine.

nik736 9y ago
Email works fine technically for sure. But what about handling things like spam? How are projects like spamhaus supposed to work with nearly infinite IPv6 addresses? This is extremely hard with IPv4 already, it will be a huge mess with IPv6.
- flyinghamster 9y ago
  IPv6 blacklists seem to be based on /64 prefixes rather than individual addresses. That hit me when I was enabling an IPv6 MX on a VPS; I had to get my own /64 prefix rather than use the standard default single address, since the default lied within a spammer-contaminated /64 block. I know it seems rather excessive to use an entire /64 and only populate a few addresses, but I'd rather have too many addresses available than too few.
  - cm2187 9y ago
    But how do you know you should use a /64 mask? One of my hosting providers assigns much smaller subnets. Some others assign /56. You are at risk of blocking many legitimate IPs and missing many others.
    - profmonocle 9y ago
      > But how do you know you should use a /64 mask? One of my hosting providers assigns much smaller subnets. It's baked into the standard that IPv6 networks shouldn't be smaller than /64. If a provider is disregarding the standard so blatantly I would probably avoid them. Really, why on earth would a cloud provider be so stingy with IPv6 that they'd give less than a /64 per customer? ARIN gives out /32s like candy and a single /32 can be split into ~4.3 billion /64s.
      - dingo_bat 9y ago
        /32 is like you can build your own entire internet!
      - daurnimator 9y ago
        Sadly the ISP for internet to our office building only gave out a /65... that we are meant to share with ~20 companies. Suffice to say I've got IPv6 to the internet gateway, but no further. => They fulfilled their contractual obligation to "provide ipv6 connectivity", while being entirely useless. They'll probably use us as a stat to prove that no one wants ipv6 anyway... There is no choice in provider.
        cm2187 9y ago
        But why /65 is such a big deal? You can divide it in 32 different /70 subnets, one per company. That still leave you with 2^58 IPs by company. You can still even use MAC addresses in your IPs.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
- jazoom 9y ago
  Good. It should have always been based on the domain anyway.
- munin 9y ago
  The blacklists would probably just expand to subnets.

joecool1029 9y ago

>I don't think we will see IPv6 eliminating IPv4 within the next 10 years. There are large ISP's that already have for the most part gone ipv6-only. Here's T-Mobile USA's roadmap: http://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/04-IPv6-NAv6TF-Langerholm-1.pdf http://www.rmv6tf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/04-IPv6-NAv... Apple has already required all apps to support ipv6-only on iOS for some time. I think it's going to be a lot less rocky than you think.

xorcist 9y ago

> Since switching and routing IPv6 is more expensive This was true for the first generation of products which weren't designed with v6 in mind. I don't think it's necessarily true anymore. The fixed length fields and much easier routing tables should lead to less complex hardware. (Not that it matters since everyone is dual stacked for the forseeable future.)

bluGill 9y ago

Completely eliminated - of course not. There will be the odd medical device, a couple labs, or "grandma" with old hardware. However practically eliminated is possible, even likely. ISPs are moving that way, we are out of IPv4 addresses and all. Eventually penetration will be large enough that some smaller servers will decide that having an ipv4 presence isn't worth it. Probably because the ipv4 static address costs money and ipv6 is cheaper.

cm2187 9y ago

I have a use for IPv6 in VMs: setting up IPSec between my machines which require a dedicated IP. Expensive luxury with IPv4, no brainer with IPv6.