4 ms·

y u so mad? > Literally counterproductive in the case of Azure, where turning on IPv6 anywhere will break unrelated IPv4 functionality! not just on azure; sma

y u so mad? > Literally counterproductive in the case of Azure, where turning on IPv6 anywhere will break unrelated IPv4 functionality! not just on azure; smartphones seem to be the only environment were v6 is doing its job (lots of smartphones need lots of addresses. ipv6 has a lot of addresses, problem solved) and i guess it's because they are most user-centric client-device imaginable, the actual users don't care at all and most importantly; expect things to occasionally fail.

jiggawatts 5y ago
I'm mad because network "engineers" use that word without realising what it entails to earn that title. The painting has been on the wall for decades. IPv4 exhaustion was predicted to the week. Did anyone do anything about it? No. There are people talking about how Kubernetes is the "future" on this very forum, yet it simply does not work with IPv6. Instead, it uses NAT and RFC1918 ranges... but you've got to be careful not to accidentally overlap those subnets with the rest of your network! I have a customer that screwed this up and now they're facing a rebuild of 3 out of 4 of their clusters. Fun times. I have another customer undergoing mergers, where renumbering their IPv4 RFC1918 ranges is going to cost them on the order of $10M. IPv4 is the legacy, and its costing real money to keep it going decades after its expiry.
- hansel_der 5y ago
  > I have another customer undergoing mergers, where renumbering their IPv4 RFC1918 ranges is going to cost them on the order of $10M. i suppose that is way less than what a switch to v6 would cost?
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    Precisely. And why should IPv6 be expensive? Is it because we still tolerate vendors throwing up software that merely pretends to be IPv6 capable? Or because IPv6 is magically harder than IPv4 despite being nearly identical?
    - yardstick 5y ago
      IPv6 should have supported NAT like IPv4, not dragged its heels by begrudgingly implementing it years/decades later (and still not all support IPv6 NAT so the problem isn’t yet solved). NAT, as much as you hate it, makes deployments easier and quicker and simpler for your average business. I don’t have to worry about BGP, or if my ISP has given me a /64 only or can they do a /60 or /48. A gradual migration would have allowed both types of approaches to be used. Some would start with IPv6 using NAT, and other more switched on orgs could go straight away with NAT-free IPv6 networks. And lets face it, this has been a very gradual 20 years migration…

jiggawatts 5y ago

I'm mad because network "engineers" use that word without realising what it entails to earn that title. The painting has been on the wall for decades. IPv4 exhaustion was predicted to the week. Did anyone do anything about it? No. There are people talking about how Kubernetes is the "future" on this very forum, yet it simply does not work with IPv6. Instead, it uses NAT and RFC1918 ranges... but you've got to be careful not to accidentally overlap those subnets with the rest of your network! I have a customer that screwed this up and now they're facing a rebuild of 3 out of 4 of their clusters. Fun times. I have another customer undergoing mergers, where renumbering their IPv4 RFC1918 ranges is going to cost them on the order of $10M. IPv4 is the legacy, and its costing real money to keep it going decades after its expiry.

hansel_der 5y ago
> I have another customer undergoing mergers, where renumbering their IPv4 RFC1918 ranges is going to cost them on the order of $10M. i suppose that is way less than what a switch to v6 would cost?
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  Precisely. And why should IPv6 be expensive? Is it because we still tolerate vendors throwing up software that merely pretends to be IPv6 capable? Or because IPv6 is magically harder than IPv4 despite being nearly identical?
  - yardstick 5y ago
    IPv6 should have supported NAT like IPv4, not dragged its heels by begrudgingly implementing it years/decades later (and still not all support IPv6 NAT so the problem isn’t yet solved). NAT, as much as you hate it, makes deployments easier and quicker and simpler for your average business. I don’t have to worry about BGP, or if my ISP has given me a /64 only or can they do a /60 or /48. A gradual migration would have allowed both types of approaches to be used. Some would start with IPv6 using NAT, and other more switched on orgs could go straight away with NAT-free IPv6 networks. And lets face it, this has been a very gradual 20 years migration…