3 ms·

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 a

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.
kaliszad 5y ago
There are btw. IPv6 only hosters out there, e.g. https://ungleich.ch/en-us/cms/ https://ungleich.ch/en-us/cms/ but other are offering IPv6-only as a cheaper option. Yes, it is not totally mainstream yet.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  I know there are IPv6 only hosters out there. However, as I stated previously, they are only for niche uses such as hobby projects or internal services, not for use by the general public. They will remain so until IPv6 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.

kaliszad 5y ago

There are btw. IPv6 only hosters out there, e.g. https://ungleich.ch/en-us/cms/ https://ungleich.ch/en-us/cms/ but other are offering IPv6-only as a cheaper option. Yes, it is not totally mainstream yet.

ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
I know there are IPv6 only hosters out there. However, as I stated previously, they are only for niche uses such as hobby projects or internal services, not for use by the general public. They will remain so until IPv6 reaches critical mass.