4 ms·

> Please don't enable anything by default unless it's actually working Then again, we know news of v4 running out and v6 being the only usable replacement has

by IcePic 7y ago

> Please don't enable anything by default unless it's actually working Then again, we know news of v4 running out and v6 being the only usable replacement has been running for .. 20 years? If people start _now_ and test what v6 means, then we get what we deserve. Not pointing only to you, but equally the server ends mentioned in this thread also. IANA released its last allocations 8 years ago, how much more forewarning do people need in order to actually move their butts? If you get v6 issues today, it is only because people put their heads in the sand and decided "hey, I have this one machine with a v4 on which I can serve data, I don't need to worry about this issue ever". Having to fiddle with do-or-do-not-resolve-v6 to make stuff work is something we should have spent time on in 2003 or so.

clarry 7y ago
> Having to fiddle with do-or-do-not-resolve-v6 to make stuff work is something we should have spent time on in 2003 or so. Agree. The difficulty is that the internet is big and has too many actors, so it's impossible to get everyone on board to plan the roll out. So the next option of just chaotically enabling things here and there without carefully designed fallbacks or coordination in the larger ecosystem is causing precisely the issues that make people scream and look for the switch to turn it all off. It's pretty crazy if you think. I don't think anyone's deploying large production systems with so little coordination and so much random switch flipping by different unrelated (but nevertheless interconnected and interdependent) parties. I can't imagine why the largest big system on planet earth would just work if people do that.
magicalhippo 7y ago
> IANA released its last allocations 8 years ago, how much more forewarning do people need in order to actually move their butts? IPv6 feels like the tech version of climate change. Requires too many to do too much with no or negative short-term payout.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  The payout is not negative. ISPs, especially mobile ones, are rewarded for turning on IPv6 because IPv4 addresses are expensive and CGNAT causes a host of issues for customers.

by IcePic 7y ago

clarry 7y ago

> Having to fiddle with do-or-do-not-resolve-v6 to make stuff work is something we should have spent time on in 2003 or so. Agree. The difficulty is that the internet is big and has too many actors, so it's impossible to get everyone on board to plan the roll out. So the next option of just chaotically enabling things here and there without carefully designed fallbacks or coordination in the larger ecosystem is causing precisely the issues that make people scream and look for the switch to turn it all off. It's pretty crazy if you think. I don't think anyone's deploying large production systems with so little coordination and so much random switch flipping by different unrelated (but nevertheless interconnected and interdependent) parties. I can't imagine why the largest big system on planet earth would just work if people do that.

magicalhippo 7y ago

> IANA released its last allocations 8 years ago, how much more forewarning do people need in order to actually move their butts? IPv6 feels like the tech version of climate change. Requires too many to do too much with no or negative short-term payout.

umanwizard 7y ago
The payout is not negative. ISPs, especially mobile ones, are rewarded for turning on IPv6 because IPv4 addresses are expensive and CGNAT causes a host of issues for customers.