4 ms·

Do these arguments not apply to IPv6 customers speaking to legacy IPv4 sites? They also have to go through IPv4 NAT, it's just that the NAT is converting it to

by geofft 8y ago

Do these arguments not apply to IPv6 customers speaking to legacy IPv4 sites? They also have to go through IPv4 NAT, it's just that the NAT is converting it to a public IPv6 address instead of a CGNAT IPv4 one. Wouldn't law enforcement and ad targeting be equally unhappy by piles of IPv6 users being converted to the same IPv4 address? If enough of the Internet is running IPv6 that you save significantly on performance by bypassing NAT for IPv6 sites only, that seems worthwhile, sure. But also I'd intuitively find that surprising, at least at present - maybe my intuitions are just wrong about how much IPv6 there is.

phicoh 8y ago
For ad networks, the sensible thing to do is to support IPv6. Then any ISP with CGNAT only has to enable IPv6 to make it work. I have no clue what law enforcement plans to do. Video services use most of the bandwidth. So with youtube and netflix on IPv6, you can easily have most the traffic go over IPv6.
Dagger2 8y ago
The most recent figures I've heard were that something like 40-60% of traffic (by bytes) on a dual-stacked client ISP will go over v6. I heard that stat about 4-5 years ago, so it seems reasonable to expect it to be even higher nowadays. Another advantage is that v6 is easy to hand off early, but if you're CGNATing v4 then your v4 traffic has to go via your CGNAT routers. For cost reasons you probably want as few of those as possible, which means v4 traffic may need to go further to reach them. T-Mobile in the US is like this; v6 traffic is passed off as soon as possible and gets a relatively direct network path, but v4 traffic has to go all the way to one of their datacenters to get NATed. That can add a lot of latency.
devdas 8y ago
But you would have far fewer connections behind the IPv6 - IPv4 NAT. Then the performance problems are limited to sites without IPv6.

by geofft 8y ago

phicoh 8y ago

For ad networks, the sensible thing to do is to support IPv6. Then any ISP with CGNAT only has to enable IPv6 to make it work. I have no clue what law enforcement plans to do. Video services use most of the bandwidth. So with youtube and netflix on IPv6, you can easily have most the traffic go over IPv6.

Dagger2 8y ago

The most recent figures I've heard were that something like 40-60% of traffic (by bytes) on a dual-stacked client ISP will go over v6. I heard that stat about 4-5 years ago, so it seems reasonable to expect it to be even higher nowadays. Another advantage is that v6 is easy to hand off early, but if you're CGNATing v4 then your v4 traffic has to go via your CGNAT routers. For cost reasons you probably want as few of those as possible, which means v4 traffic may need to go further to reach them. T-Mobile in the US is like this; v6 traffic is passed off as soon as possible and gets a relatively direct network path, but v4 traffic has to go all the way to one of their datacenters to get NATed. That can add a lot of latency.

devdas 8y ago

But you would have far fewer connections behind the IPv6 - IPv4 NAT. Then the performance problems are limited to sites without IPv6.