5 ms·
Why is it crazy? They don't gain anything by supporting IPv6.
by vbezhenar 5y ago
Why is it crazy? They don't gain anything by supporting IPv6.
- miohtama 5y agoIf you can do direct consumer mobile phone IPv6 to server IPv6 there are benefits in latency, throughput, congestion control, analytics and so on. A better user experience. Depending on the hosting setup and networks, this may or may not be significant.
- vbezhenar 5y agocarrier NAT is unlikely to introduce measurable latency, especially in wireless networks. I agree that IPv6 allows for better user tracking, probably that's one of the reasons to adopt it. For example iPhones are virtually indistinguishable from each other, so the only reliable way to track them is cookie or IP address.
- supertrope 5y agoIt costs money to buy and maintain CG NAT infrastructure. Local authorities will demand you log who had what IP address at the time of interest.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y agoIPv4 or CGNAT costs are not optional. You will have to pay them regardless of if you deploy IPv6 or not.
- toast0 5y agoIPv4 and CGNAT costs scale with usage. The more traffic you offload to IPv6, the less CGNAT capacity you need and the less IPv4 space you need; you need enough IPv4 addresses so you can give out unique IP:Ports for all concurrent connections to popular destination IP:Ports.
- 2fastpost 5y agoNone of those are arguments for why IPv4 or CGNAT costs are optional; you cannot run an ISP without IPv4 or CGNAT, therefore the IPv4 or CGNAT costs are not optional. You will incur them regardless of if you deploy IPv6 or not. If you deploy IPv6, you might not deploy CGNAT, but unless you are dual stacking, something functionally equivalent is required. As to scaling costs, IPv6 offload isn’t a 1:1 replacement for IPv4 or CGNAT capacity. You need enough capacity to carry the IPv6 traffic over IPv4 in case your IPv6 transport, transit or peers fail. Again, not optional.
- supertrope 5y agoParent commenter wasn't saying that CG NAT costs could be avoided entirely. Deploying IPv6 gets Netflix, YouTube, Facebook and other popular traffic to connect directly. That means less racks of CG NAT.
- 2fastpost 5y agoLike I said, you can only avoid CGNAT costs if you accept the failure modes inherent if/when your IPv6 fails. Thus in a properly designed network these are not optional costs.
- Dagger2 5y agoYou do avoid some of the cost, because you can direct a significant amount of your traffic over v6 and not need to CGNAT it. The failure mode for your v6 failing is the same as it is for v4 failing in a v4-only ISP: stuff breaks. If you want to fix that you need a redundant failover setup, which is the same thing you need in v4 except cheaper because it doesn't need to do CGNAT.
- toast0 5y ago> You need enough capacity to carry the IPv6 traffic over IPv4 in case your IPv6 transport, transit or peers fail. Again, not optional. Surely you need enough IPv6 capacity incase your IPv4 transit fails as well. If JIO could have built enough IPv4 capacity to run their network over IPv4, they would have, but they can't, so they've been pushing IPv6 hard.
- supertrope 5y agoLess racks of CG NAT. Deploying IPv6 gets Netflix, YouTube, Facebook and other popular traffic to connect directly.
- somerandomqaguy 5y agoWouldn't that cost be easy to pass along to the customers though? Assuming the authorities aren't discriminating against a single ISP, then all the ISP's can just raise their price at the same time. Or have I been living with Canadian ISPs too long and that sort of thing doesn't happen in the rest of the world?
- billytetrud 5y agoIt's super weird you think passing costs onto consumers makes the problem go away. When a company passes costs to their consumers, consumers buy their product less, so that company loses money anyway.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoSorry, i am concerned about me, the consumer, loosing money
- tpxl 5y agoYou do lose money because they raised the prices.
- pixl97 5y agoCGNAT is a consumer nightmare that makes them a second class citizen dependent on large providers to offer services.
- belorn 5y agoI all the studies I have seen, ipv6 enabled networks outperform ipv4 only networks in term of latency. Improved latency mean improved responsiveness, and that in turn has companies claiming improved user retention and sales. If you need an argument to support ipv6, those seems like good reasons to support ipv6.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y agoI can’t see any difference in latency in the services I use between IPv4 and IPv6. What I want to know is do all these studies take into consideration the “happy eyeballs” algorithm that prefers IPv6 over IPv4 in web browser requests, thus delaying the IPv4 request?
- betterunix2 5y agoThe latency in question has to do with routers. IPv6 packets have a simpler header that does not force routers to recompute a checksum for each hop, and IPv6 allows better route aggregation which reduces the CPU overhead of route selection in some cases.
- 2fastpost 5y agoI am unaware of any router forwarding IPv4 packets slower than IPv6 packets. Can you back up this claim with any sources? Route aggregation or selection does not impact forwarding performance on a router.
- betterunix2 5y agoA few years old but here you go: https://www.retevia.net/fast/ https://www.retevia.net/fast/ In some cases, yes, the routing table size will impact performance; for example if the FIB is too big to fit in TCAM: https://labs.apnic.net/?p=520 https://labs.apnic.net/?p=520 Note that this particular incident was caused by deaggregation of routes announced by Verizon, and that had the routes been properly aggregated it could have been avoided (though normal routing table growth would have eventually caused the problem anyway).