6 ms·

Well, IPv4 is not bad per se, and it can perfectly co-exist with IPv6. IPv6 has some technical benefits for the internet, but the internet isn't a worse place w

by LeonM 7y ago

Well, IPv4 is not bad per se, and it can perfectly co-exist with IPv6. IPv6 has some technical benefits for the internet, but the internet isn't a worse place while IPv4 is still there. IPv6 offers little to no benefit for the average internet user. For ISPs and telcos IPv6 isn't really attractive because they can't market it like other technologies (5G! 5G! 5G! look! we have 5G!). None of my ISPs (home, office and mobile carrier) currently offer IPv6, which I am personally frustrated about, but I totally understand why they don't.

ancarda 7y ago
Don't those arguments apply to NCP too? i.e. You need 2 ports rather than 1, and there's probably other disadvantages, but that doesn't affect the average Internet user much.
- LeonM 7y ago
  Computers had much less resources back then, and NCP had reached it's limits in terms of scalability. Running both TCP and NCP would have hindered progress and innovation. So the decision to outright deprecate NCP was necessary to keep scaling the network up. Keeping IPv4 alive today doesn't hinder progress, and with the high bandwidth available nowadays the minor overhead improvements of IPv6 will be barely noticeable for the average user. Also keep in mind that the average internet user back in 1983 were a bit different from today ;-) edit: typo
  - pm7 7y ago
    > Keeping IPv4 alive today doesn't hinder progress Because many users/services have only IPv4, practically all services and ISP have to provide IPv4 and do not have to provide IPv6. If we could agree to kill IPv4 at specific date, we could have truly IPv6 Internet years ago.
    - sedatk 7y ago
      And in return we would have harder to remember IP addresses. Nothing a user would drool about.
      - pm7 7y ago
        User should not use IP addresses. This is what we have DNS and mDNS for. In special cases, like local router if mDNS is unavailable, IPv6 address is even easier than IPv4 (compare "FE80::1" to "192.168.0.1"). Anyway, it's not like it's a choice unless you want to restrict who deserves public IP and who doesn't, because we do not have enough IPv4 for everyone.
        WorldMaker 7y ago
        Most average users don't notice IP addresses and would have no idea if their system is using IPv4 or IPv6 in ordinary day-to-day life, so long as it works. Statistically it's average home users that are already using IPv6-first if not IPv6-only and ISP/Carrier-Grade NAT6TO4 (most mobile networks, and a plurality of home networks), where it's increasingly Enterprises and certain types of power users holding on to IPv4 addresses that seem to be the biggest hold outs on IPv6.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eatbitseveryday 7y ago
> None of my ISPs (home, office and mobile carrier) currently offer IPv6, which I am personally frustrated about, but I totally understand why they don't. Can you get around this by using a tunnel/VPN to a provider [0] which does allow IPv6? [0] https://blog.scaleway.com/2016/introducing-native-ipv6-connectivity-on-scaleway/ https://blog.scaleway.com/2016/introducing-native-ipv6-conne...

by LeonM 7y ago

ancarda 7y ago

Don't those arguments apply to NCP too? i.e. You need 2 ports rather than 1, and there's probably other disadvantages, but that doesn't affect the average Internet user much.

LeonM 7y ago
Computers had much less resources back then, and NCP had reached it's limits in terms of scalability. Running both TCP and NCP would have hindered progress and innovation. So the decision to outright deprecate NCP was necessary to keep scaling the network up. Keeping IPv4 alive today doesn't hinder progress, and with the high bandwidth available nowadays the minor overhead improvements of IPv6 will be barely noticeable for the average user. Also keep in mind that the average internet user back in 1983 were a bit different from today ;-) edit: typo
- pm7 7y ago
  > Keeping IPv4 alive today doesn't hinder progress Because many users/services have only IPv4, practically all services and ISP have to provide IPv4 and do not have to provide IPv6. If we could agree to kill IPv4 at specific date, we could have truly IPv6 Internet years ago.
  - sedatk 7y ago
    And in return we would have harder to remember IP addresses. Nothing a user would drool about.
    - pm7 7y ago
      User should not use IP addresses. This is what we have DNS and mDNS for. In special cases, like local router if mDNS is unavailable, IPv6 address is even easier than IPv4 (compare "FE80::1" to "192.168.0.1"). Anyway, it's not like it's a choice unless you want to restrict who deserves public IP and who doesn't, because we do not have enough IPv4 for everyone.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        Most average users don't notice IP addresses and would have no idea if their system is using IPv4 or IPv6 in ordinary day-to-day life, so long as it works. Statistically it's average home users that are already using IPv6-first if not IPv6-only and ISP/Carrier-Grade NAT6TO4 (most mobile networks, and a plurality of home networks), where it's increasingly Enterprises and certain types of power users holding on to IPv4 addresses that seem to be the biggest hold outs on IPv6.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

eatbitseveryday 7y ago

> None of my ISPs (home, office and mobile carrier) currently offer IPv6, which I am personally frustrated about, but I totally understand why they don't. Can you get around this by using a tunnel/VPN to a provider [0] which does allow IPv6? [0] https://blog.scaleway.com/2016/introducing-native-ipv6-connectivity-on-scaleway/ https://blog.scaleway.com/2016/introducing-native-ipv6-conne...