5 ms·

I tried IPv6 on my business modem years ago. Per the ISP's top engineer, many firmware bugs made a static setup impossible at that point in time. Amazon only

I tried IPv6 on my business modem years ago. Per the ISP's top engineer, many firmware bugs made a static setup impossible at that point in time. Amazon only added it to EC2 instances a year or so ago. Most corporate network and infosec guys I've talked to about it are dragging their feet as much as they can--network guys because if they don't have to have it, they don't want it, and infosec guys because it's one more attack surface, and is not as easy to enumerate as IPv4. Personally, if it gets us back to old-school disintermediated communications, I'm excited about it. In the back of my mind, I fear the powers-that-be will come up with some bullshit to NAT the hell out of IPv6 as well. Disintermediation will de-rail quite a few gravy trains!

ktpsns 7y ago
Same for me: Had to use IPv6 via my home cable uplink. The IPv4 gateway was located at the ISP. This translation service was called "DSLite". The performance was horrible, connections frequently dropped. This was basically last year. Now I pay more (like 35€/m instead of 20€/m) to get an IPv4 only connection.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  Funny. For me the carrier grade NAT via DSLite performs better. If i run full dual stack my router is getting warmer, and there are dropouts/pauses. IPv4 only is nothing special. Best performance of all is when only IPv6 is involved, like unbelievable pings and rtts over the atlantic. I tested that a long time ago because it could switch it at will, and after a reconnect it worked like ordered. Anyways, it also depends on the peering of your ISP and the involved devices.
  - ktpsns 7y ago
    Interesting, I never heard of practical advantages of IPv6 for the end user, such as dramatically better ping times. Given the simplified routing, I can imagine this to be true. Are there applications where this pays off, such as reduced delays in cross-atlantic video chats?

ktpsns 7y ago

Same for me: Had to use IPv6 via my home cable uplink. The IPv4 gateway was located at the ISP. This translation service was called "DSLite". The performance was horrible, connections frequently dropped. This was basically last year. Now I pay more (like 35€/m instead of 20€/m) to get an IPv4 only connection.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
Funny. For me the carrier grade NAT via DSLite performs better. If i run full dual stack my router is getting warmer, and there are dropouts/pauses. IPv4 only is nothing special. Best performance of all is when only IPv6 is involved, like unbelievable pings and rtts over the atlantic. I tested that a long time ago because it could switch it at will, and after a reconnect it worked like ordered. Anyways, it also depends on the peering of your ISP and the involved devices.
- ktpsns 7y ago
  Interesting, I never heard of practical advantages of IPv6 for the end user, such as dramatically better ping times. Given the simplified routing, I can imagine this to be true. Are there applications where this pays off, such as reduced delays in cross-atlantic video chats?