5 ms·

If anything this message says something about the abysmal state of IPv6. Ultimately the goal of IPv6 is to end IP scarcity. But it can only do this if close to

by hannob 5y ago

If anything this message says something about the abysmal state of IPv6. Ultimately the goal of IPv6 is to end IP scarcity. But it can only do this if close to 100% of users and services use IPv6. Seeing it like that it doesn't really matter much if IPv6 adoption is 30% or 60% or 90%. In none of these situations would an ISP connect its customers via IPv6 only or would anyone provide any service that requires IPv6. I really wonder how IPv6 should ever become mainstream without any deployment strategy. "Let's tell everyone that IPv6 is nice and we need it due to lack of v4 addresses" obviously hasn't worked for more than 20 years.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 5y ago
AFAICT, IPv4 addresses are currently going for about US$ 40/IP. At some point if ISPs run out of addresses and need more, it may be cheaper to simply implement IPv6 with a one-time, up-front project than having to go back to the well/market for more IPv4 blocks. Similarly for hosting providers: as IPv4 addresses get more expensive, they may have to start charging their customers more and more for each one, at which point the customers may simply go only-/mostly-IPv6.
- hannob 5y ago
  That's not how it works. A single ISP can't do anything about the situation. They can provide IPv6 to their customers, but they still need IPv4 so their customers so they have a usable internet connection. It doesn't help them at all. Which is part of the problem here: As long as IPv6 is not implemented by everybody the people who do implement it have no advantage.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    An ISP probably already has IPv4 addresses, but needs more addresses for basic connectivity. They can become IPv6-only and then use their IPv4 block/s for CGNAT. The money would go to either buying more addresses or more CGNAT. This is how a lot of mobile/cell telcos already work. A T-Mobile presentation from 2018 (PDF): * https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/20180625_Lagerholm_T-Mobile_S_Journey_To_v1.pdf https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/...
    - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
      Running an IPv6 core and offering IPv4-as-a-service doesn’t really make you IPv6-only.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you're referring to. Here's a dude from T-Mobile explaining how they have (in 2017) over ten million end-customer devices without any IPv4 addresses assigned: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE For reaching services that are IPv6 only they use(d) DNS64 (with and without 464XLAT).
        ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
        IPv6-only as a term has been heavily abused. A truly IPv6-only network has no access to IPv4 resources. If it does, it isn’t really IPv6-only and relies upon IPv4 addresses and NAT to work.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  The problem with the above is that it isn’t a viable solution. You cannot just deploy IPv6, take your IPv4 ball and go home. ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no other option than to get out your checkbook or scale back your business. Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost. It simply isn’t viable to go IPv6-only, as IPv4 is where the money/customers are. This will not change until IPV6 somehow reaches critical mass.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no other option than to get out your checkbook or scale back your business. Yes, that's what I'm saying. At some point going IPv6-only and paying for (CG)NAT64 may be cheaper than trying to buy more and more IPv4 addresses. ISPs would already have IPv4 addresses, but they'd simply use them for reaching the 'legacy' Internet, and they wouldn't be assigned to people's routers WAN interface. > Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost. It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. The first address may be free, but if you want multiple, then you could be charged for the 'extra' ones. Depending on the number of public services needed, some people may find it cheaper to use the IPv4 address(es) on the front-end of a load balancer and have their actual system be IPv6.
    - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
      You are confusing IPv6-only and running an IPv6 core. Those are not equivalent. >It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. Of coarse it will be the hosting company paying for the IPv4 addresses as they will be the ones owning them. Of coarse the end customers will complain and not want to pay, but pay they will as they have no other choice. It’s neither here nor there whether the end customers run IPv4 or IPv6 internally, it’s the public IPv4 addresses that matter.
tialaramex 5y ago
> In none of these situations would an ISP connect its customers via IPv6 only or would anyone provide any service that requires IPv6. It's so much cheaper and faster already today that it makes sense to do v6-only internally and deliver IPv6 to the large fraction of customers who can have IPv6 and deploy a transform layer for the (gradually shrinking) class of have-nots. Your IPv4-only competitors are spending more money to deliver a worse service. Maybe they'll wake up and realise, but the story of the past couple of decades suggests most such outfits are not too bright and when offered IPv6 on new links they'll smugly decline. Meanwhile you get to keep the difference. Your competitor thinks this service costs 86¢ per dollar revenue and you're only spending 84¢ per dollar revenue that's a lot of extra profitability. Fighting this is a losing battle, and I imagine that decades from now somebody is going to write a book about how it was cognitively possible for "leaders" to champion an idea that couldn't possibly work, that they intellectually knew couldn't work, and all the actual evidence said wasn't working, and yet they believed in it anyway. Or that book might be about climate change denial, either way. Eventually by the way - and 90% global is close to and even perhaps at the threshold where that's plausible for some of them - many general ISPs won't bother providing actual IPv4 networking. If you want IPv4 you're a niche customer, go find a bespoke IPv4 Internet Service Provider. If you're IPv6 capable but you want to reach an IPv4 host you'll go via a translation box automatically. As the interest in global IPv4 shrinks, the transit companies will lose interest in that service too, and eventually - decades from now - the IPv4 Internet literally goes away, the RIRs stop "managing" the now largely unused space and the residual pockets of IPv4 cease to interoperate.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > It's so much cheaper and faster already today that it makes sense to do v6-only internally Absolutely not. Routers, OSes and applications still have much better support for IPv4 than IPv6. Replacing large routers, fighting bugs and running pure IPv6 on internal networks is very expensive.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    There haven't been ipv4-only routers sold in such a long time that they've been retired from service by now. v6 was a new router feature something like 15 or 20 years ago (and same for operating systems).
betterunix2 5y ago
"Ultimately the goal of IPv6 is to end IP scarcity" That is a goal, and perhaps the primary goal, but there are other goals as well. IPv6 makes the Internet itself more efficient by reducing routing overhead and it simplifies network management. Of course, what will ultimately force ISPs and services to switch to IPv6 is IPv4 address space exhaustion. As the price of a public IPv4 address rises people will begin to more seriously consider an IPv6-only approach, even if it means losing a few users (especially since ISPs will have to make IPv6 available once such services become popular). It has taken longer than expected as various approaches have squeezed the last bits of utility out of IPv4, but it will eventually happen as several billion more people are connected to the Internet.

by hannob 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 5y ago

AFAICT, IPv4 addresses are currently going for about US$ 40/IP. At some point if ISPs run out of addresses and need more, it may be cheaper to simply implement IPv6 with a one-time, up-front project than having to go back to the well/market for more IPv4 blocks. Similarly for hosting providers: as IPv4 addresses get more expensive, they may have to start charging their customers more and more for each one, at which point the customers may simply go only-/mostly-IPv6.

hannob 5y ago
That's not how it works. A single ISP can't do anything about the situation. They can provide IPv6 to their customers, but they still need IPv4 so their customers so they have a usable internet connection. It doesn't help them at all. Which is part of the problem here: As long as IPv6 is not implemented by everybody the people who do implement it have no advantage.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  An ISP probably already has IPv4 addresses, but needs more addresses for basic connectivity. They can become IPv6-only and then use their IPv4 block/s for CGNAT. The money would go to either buying more addresses or more CGNAT. This is how a lot of mobile/cell telcos already work. A T-Mobile presentation from 2018 (PDF): * https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/20180625_Lagerholm_T-Mobile_S_Journey_To_v1.pdf https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/...
  - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
    Running an IPv6 core and offering IPv4-as-a-service doesn’t really make you IPv6-only.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you're referring to. Here's a dude from T-Mobile explaining how they have (in 2017) over ten million end-customer devices without any IPv4 addresses assigned: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE For reaching services that are IPv6 only they use(d) DNS64 (with and without 464XLAT).
      - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
        IPv6-only as a term has been heavily abused. A truly IPv6-only network has no access to IPv4 resources. If it does, it isn’t really IPv6-only and relies upon IPv4 addresses and NAT to work.
ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
The problem with the above is that it isn’t a viable solution. You cannot just deploy IPv6, take your IPv4 ball and go home. ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no other option than to get out your checkbook or scale back your business. Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost. It simply isn’t viable to go IPv6-only, as IPv4 is where the money/customers are. This will not change until IPV6 somehow reaches critical mass.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no other option than to get out your checkbook or scale back your business. Yes, that's what I'm saying. At some point going IPv6-only and paying for (CG)NAT64 may be cheaper than trying to buy more and more IPv4 addresses. ISPs would already have IPv4 addresses, but they'd simply use them for reaching the 'legacy' Internet, and they wouldn't be assigned to people's routers WAN interface. > Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost. It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. The first address may be free, but if you want multiple, then you could be charged for the 'extra' ones. Depending on the number of public services needed, some people may find it cheaper to use the IPv4 address(es) on the front-end of a load balancer and have their actual system be IPv6.
  - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
    You are confusing IPv6-only and running an IPv6 core. Those are not equivalent. >It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. Of coarse it will be the hosting company paying for the IPv4 addresses as they will be the ones owning them. Of coarse the end customers will complain and not want to pay, but pay they will as they have no other choice. It’s neither here nor there whether the end customers run IPv4 or IPv6 internally, it’s the public IPv4 addresses that matter.

tialaramex 5y ago

> In none of these situations would an ISP connect its customers via IPv6 only or would anyone provide any service that requires IPv6. It's so much cheaper and faster already today that it makes sense to do v6-only internally and deliver IPv6 to the large fraction of customers who can have IPv6 and deploy a transform layer for the (gradually shrinking) class of have-nots. Your IPv4-only competitors are spending more money to deliver a worse service. Maybe they'll wake up and realise, but the story of the past couple of decades suggests most such outfits are not too bright and when offered IPv6 on new links they'll smugly decline. Meanwhile you get to keep the difference. Your competitor thinks this service costs 86¢ per dollar revenue and you're only spending 84¢ per dollar revenue that's a lot of extra profitability. Fighting this is a losing battle, and I imagine that decades from now somebody is going to write a book about how it was cognitively possible for "leaders" to champion an idea that couldn't possibly work, that they intellectually knew couldn't work, and all the actual evidence said wasn't working, and yet they believed in it anyway. Or that book might be about climate change denial, either way. Eventually by the way - and 90% global is close to and even perhaps at the threshold where that's plausible for some of them - many general ISPs won't bother providing actual IPv4 networking. If you want IPv4 you're a niche customer, go find a bespoke IPv4 Internet Service Provider. If you're IPv6 capable but you want to reach an IPv4 host you'll go via a translation box automatically. As the interest in global IPv4 shrinks, the transit companies will lose interest in that service too, and eventually - decades from now - the IPv4 Internet literally goes away, the RIRs stop "managing" the now largely unused space and the residual pockets of IPv4 cease to interoperate.

goodpoint 5y ago
> It's so much cheaper and faster already today that it makes sense to do v6-only internally Absolutely not. Routers, OSes and applications still have much better support for IPv4 than IPv6. Replacing large routers, fighting bugs and running pure IPv6 on internal networks is very expensive.
- fulafel 5y ago
  There haven't been ipv4-only routers sold in such a long time that they've been retired from service by now. v6 was a new router feature something like 15 or 20 years ago (and same for operating systems).

betterunix2 5y ago

"Ultimately the goal of IPv6 is to end IP scarcity" That is a goal, and perhaps the primary goal, but there are other goals as well. IPv6 makes the Internet itself more efficient by reducing routing overhead and it simplifies network management. Of course, what will ultimately force ISPs and services to switch to IPv6 is IPv4 address space exhaustion. As the price of a public IPv4 address rises people will begin to more seriously consider an IPv6-only approach, even if it means losing a few users (especially since ISPs will have to make IPv6 available once such services become popular). It has taken longer than expected as various approaches have squeezed the last bits of utility out of IPv4, but it will eventually happen as several billion more people are connected to the Internet.