5 ms·

Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box. To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to b

Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box. To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to be a real need for IPv6 and/or a revenue driver. Very large ISPs and mobile carriers need IPv6 because they are simply running out of IPv4 addresses, even non-public IPv4 addresses! This still does not mean they can go IPv6-only, they still need IPv4 and translation technologies to reach the Internet. The core problem of IPv6 adoption is that insensitive do not align across the whole Internet ecosystem.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box." Which is more than they are doing now. What real-world issues do you forcee. IPv6 either works, or doesn't
- 2fastpost 5y ago
  > IPv6 either works, or doesn't Oh, you sweet summer child! :) IPv6 “just works” only if you completely control the routing stack end-to-end. Once end user equipment and hosts are introduced into the network all bets are off. In a mobile network, where the carrier controls what user terminals are allowed on the network, it is at least nominally possible to achieve “just works” status. So, in the real world, forcing IPv6 would result in IPv6 being supported only in a particular configuration used in a particular way. Everybody will be told to go pound sand and no effort will be made to keep IPv6 working or prevent breakage.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
"Websites larger than X have to be IPv6-only" would probably do the trick to force adoption. Right now though, we'd be more in need of "websites and -services larger than X have to support IPv6".
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  This is a nonstarter. Forcing services to go IPv6-only would deprive the majority of Internet users of their services. I can just about imagine the shitstorm and political blowback that would entail. Even just forcing IPv6 support would be a tough row to hoe.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    If announced with a sufficient amount of time and credibility, it would force ISPs to implement it. It would potentially help them to take it more seriously if there were planned outage windows (i.e. "IPv6-only for 1 day after the law was passed, then IPv6-only for 1 week 6 months after, then permanently IPv6-only after 2 years"). ISPs would probably just take the 1-day outage and ignore customer complaints for a day. By the time the week long outage would come closer without the date being delayed, they'd start taking the issue seriously.
    - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
      Announced by who? The United World Government? And who exactly are you forcing? Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites. Anyway, it’s not enough to force one participant. If you are going IPv6-only by decree, you have to replace all end user devices too. Who is going to pay for all the new routers, game consoles, nanny cams, etc? I’m sure that container ships’ worth of PS5s is going to go well over in the appropriations committee. The truth is, it’s too late in the game for an IPv6 flag day. Too many people and too much money involved.
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
        > Announced by who? The United World Government? Yes, also known as the US government, because that's where those services are located, and who ultimately controls 99% of the Internet through .com/.net/.org. "Domains with more than (some definition of "big") under .com/.net/.org must not point to nameservers announcing A records for any of the subdomains. DNS server operators serving more than X clients must report aggregate statistics." Is it practical? Realistic? A good idea? Probably neither. But it would be a feasible way to ensure IPv6 support, with worldwide effects. > Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites. The government forces website operators to offer only IPv6. As a result, ISPs that don't support IPv6 are about as useful as a provider that drops a wet string at your doorstep. Thus, in order to be useful and deliver a service worth paying for to your customers, ISPs would be forced to support IPv6, even without a legal mandate. Due to the dominance of US web services, the US doing this would force this upon ISPs worldwide. > you have to replace all end user devices In most cases, not the devices, only the software, or rather, the configuration on it. > container ships’ worth of PS5s The PS4 and 5 support IPv6 according to what I found. https://toreanderson.github.io/2021/02/23/ipv6-support-in-the-playstation-5.html https://toreanderson.github.io/2021/02/23/ipv6-support-in-th... Most importantly, in the proposed model, Sony would most likely fall under "larger than X" if services were included, i.e. they'd have to switch to IPv6-only too (and issue updates to support that or leave their users stranded). Maybe add an exemption for services supporting systems last sold more than X years ago.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box." Which is more than they are doing now. What real-world issues do you forcee. IPv6 either works, or doesn't

2fastpost 5y ago
> IPv6 either works, or doesn't Oh, you sweet summer child! :) IPv6 “just works” only if you completely control the routing stack end-to-end. Once end user equipment and hosts are introduced into the network all bets are off. In a mobile network, where the carrier controls what user terminals are allowed on the network, it is at least nominally possible to achieve “just works” status. So, in the real world, forcing IPv6 would result in IPv6 being supported only in a particular configuration used in a particular way. Everybody will be told to go pound sand and no effort will be made to keep IPv6 working or prevent breakage.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

"Websites larger than X have to be IPv6-only" would probably do the trick to force adoption. Right now though, we'd be more in need of "websites and -services larger than X have to support IPv6".

ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
This is a nonstarter. Forcing services to go IPv6-only would deprive the majority of Internet users of their services. I can just about imagine the shitstorm and political blowback that would entail. Even just forcing IPv6 support would be a tough row to hoe.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  If announced with a sufficient amount of time and credibility, it would force ISPs to implement it. It would potentially help them to take it more seriously if there were planned outage windows (i.e. "IPv6-only for 1 day after the law was passed, then IPv6-only for 1 week 6 months after, then permanently IPv6-only after 2 years"). ISPs would probably just take the 1-day outage and ignore customer complaints for a day. By the time the week long outage would come closer without the date being delayed, they'd start taking the issue seriously.
  - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
    Announced by who? The United World Government? And who exactly are you forcing? Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites. Anyway, it’s not enough to force one participant. If you are going IPv6-only by decree, you have to replace all end user devices too. Who is going to pay for all the new routers, game consoles, nanny cams, etc? I’m sure that container ships’ worth of PS5s is going to go well over in the appropriations committee. The truth is, it’s too late in the game for an IPv6 flag day. Too many people and too much money involved.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
      > Announced by who? The United World Government? Yes, also known as the US government, because that's where those services are located, and who ultimately controls 99% of the Internet through .com/.net/.org. "Domains with more than (some definition of "big") under .com/.net/.org must not point to nameservers announcing A records for any of the subdomains. DNS server operators serving more than X clients must report aggregate statistics." Is it practical? Realistic? A good idea? Probably neither. But it would be a feasible way to ensure IPv6 support, with worldwide effects. > Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites. The government forces website operators to offer only IPv6. As a result, ISPs that don't support IPv6 are about as useful as a provider that drops a wet string at your doorstep. Thus, in order to be useful and deliver a service worth paying for to your customers, ISPs would be forced to support IPv6, even without a legal mandate. Due to the dominance of US web services, the US doing this would force this upon ISPs worldwide. > you have to replace all end user devices In most cases, not the devices, only the software, or rather, the configuration on it. > container ships’ worth of PS5s The PS4 and 5 support IPv6 according to what I found. https://toreanderson.github.io/2021/02/23/ipv6-support-in-the-playstation-5.html https://toreanderson.github.io/2021/02/23/ipv6-support-in-th... Most importantly, in the proposed model, Sony would most likely fall under "larger than X" if services were included, i.e. they'd have to switch to IPv6-only too (and issue updates to support that or leave their users stranded). Maybe add an exemption for services supporting systems last sold more than X years ago.