22 ms·
And so we must rely on v4 addresses to cater for v4 only connected hosts. This is the point the article is trying to make - for a transition to actually happen
by commandersaki 7y ago
And so we must rely on v4 addresses to cater for v4 only connected hosts. This is the point the article is trying to make - for a transition to actually happen there needs to be interoperability between v4 and v6, that is v4-only clients need to talk to v6-only servers, and v6-only servers need to talk to v4-only clients. That is a fundamental requirement for a transition plan which provides a straight-forward path from v4 to v6.
- snuxoll 7y agoWhich is dual-stack with a grandual phaseout of v4. We already pay for the bloat of the v4 routing tables, but nobody can even think of phasing them out until stuff actually starts using v6. But nobody wants to deploy v6 because everyone has this mistaken belief that it’s easier to stretch v4 out with more hacks to preserve addresses.
- dahfizz 7y agov4 only hosts are rarer than you would think. ISPs have been dual stacking for a while.
- commandersaki 7y agoThe Internet is mostly v4-only. What do you mean?
- dahfizz 7y agoDo you have anything to back that up? I work in the Telco industry. The vast majority of ISPs and carriers both provide dual stacking at least, with some carriers making as much of their network v6 only. Really the only thing that is largely stuck on v4 is large (and poorly maintained) corporate networks and cloud providers.
- commandersaki 7y agoAs I stated earlier v4 only means a network connected to the Internet via v4 without connectivity to v6. This is the majority of networks on the Internet. Otherwise we’d see adoption greater than 20% or whatever it is.
- h1d 7y agoMy cloud servers from major players all have v6 address attached on launch.