6 ms·

> Cannibalising reserved address space like 127.0.0.0/8 will only get the IPv4 internet so far. Eventually, the scarcity of IP addresses will make IPv6 the more

> Cannibalising reserved address space like 127.0.0.0/8 will only get the IPv4 internet so far. Eventually, the scarcity of IP addresses will make IPv6 the more business-conscious choice for many applications The decision to consume loopback address space has made me even more cynical about IPv6 ever becoming mainstream within my lifetime. Using IPv4 is like using fossil fuels — we know that they are going to run out/cause us harm and yet we keep using them. I don't know of a single ISP in my country which offers functional IPv6. All they do is offer CGNAT IPv4 addresses, which offers a crippled experience of the Internet.

1ris 5y ago
I don't know what you mean by "mainstream", but what I understand by it ipv6 is mainstream since quite a while. It has an adoption rate of around 50% in the western world and signifiant places outside of it (SA,India, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Brazil)
- ayushnix 5y ago
  I don't know of a single ISP in India which offers functional IPv6 in broadband connections. I won't consider 4G because it's almost useless (at least in India) for doing anything serious.
  - unmole 5y ago
    Jio Fibre does. ACT used to in some places but it's inconsistent.
    - ayushnix 5y ago
      Last I checked, IPv6 on JioFibre was broken and I couldn't get a publicly discoverable IPv6 address. Have things changed?
      - maccolgan 5y ago
        Yes, JioFibre now (?) offers fully functional IPv6 all across the board, even in the most rural of places.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    Airtel certainly does in some places.
    - ayushnix 5y ago
      I checked my Airtel Fibre connection, IPv6 is explicitly disabled by Airtel and there's no option to enable it.
- lanna 5y ago
  > in the western world and signifiant places outside of it (SA,India, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Brazil) Brazil is western
franga2000 5y ago
This will be controversial, but: I think the EU should set a deadline for IPv6 adoption to ISPs and impose fines afterwards. They seem to be legislating all kinds of crazy things (like type C connectors), so it's quite within the realm of possibility, and unlike some other things, there really isn't a way they can screw this up. Rationale: It's in the custoners' best interest to have unique publically routable addresses and without IPv6 we'll be stuck with CGNAT. The providers don't care, because rollout is expensive. So, for the good of the customer, legislation with fines is needed to better align the financial incentives.
- roenxi 5y ago
  If it is good for a customer then the provider will care. The customer will switch ISPs to those that support IPv6. Then the IPv4-only providers will get less money.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    Sure, if you ask an economist. But here in the real world, switching ISPs is hard (fees, lack of competition, replacing gear...) and the benefit of IPv6 isn't apparent yet to most people. By the time it becomes, it'll be too late and nobody will have it yet, so there won't be anywhere to switch anyways. There's a reason we have consumer protection regulation and much of it came as a result of situations where evryone thought, as you do, that the market/competition would solve the problem, but of course it didn't. That only happens in ideal markets where switching providers is trivial, the consumer is equally informed about all of them and the providers (and perhaps customers too) have equal economic power.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      > But here in the real world... Your starting point was that any ISP who doesn't implement your preferred technical standard should be fined. With a disregard for whether IPv6 makes sense for them or their customers. You might detect a little pushback here on the idea that your ideas are real world. Laissez faire is a very practical approach. > By the time it becomes, it'll be too late and nobody will have it yet, so there won't be anywhere to switch anyways. A crisis so terrible I can't even imagine it. Nobody outside some fairly obscure tech circles would even notice. Imagine if they'd taken this approach rolling out IPv4 and weren't fast enough to change the legislation. The rollout of IPv6 would look really hard if IPv4 was a legislated requirement. The EU just isn't a competent technical standards body, and it has no business trying to be one because a couple of tech types like IPv6. > That only happens in ideal markets where switching providers is trivial... I switched providers to get IPv6 support. It was pretty trivial.
koolba 5y ago
> The decision to consume loopback address space has made me even more cynical about IPv6 ever becoming mainstream within my lifetime. Wait what? Are you saying that they’re going to allocate the loopback range as v4 addresses?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The proposal is about shrinking the reserved loopback range from 127.0.0.0/8 to 127.0.0.0/16. Everything from 127.1 to 127.255 would then become ordinary IPv4 addresses.
  - icedchai 5y ago
    This is just a proposal. It will likely never happen. The proposal to open 240/4 (former class-E / reserved IPv4 space) is more feasible.
  - ericbarrett 5y ago
    Can't see this being useful. There are so many devices and so much software with 127.0.0.0/8 baked in that I suspect an address in the proposed range would be less routable (overall) than an IPv6-only endpoint, and remain so for years, even if it became official.
- cesarb 5y ago
  > Are you saying that they’re going to allocate the loopback range as v4 addresses? Yes, there's a proposal to do so, which was discussed here last week (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29246420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29246420 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29245466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29245466).
School-Cotton 5y ago
IPv6 is already mainstream in many countries, including the United States.

1ris 5y ago

I don't know what you mean by "mainstream", but what I understand by it ipv6 is mainstream since quite a while. It has an adoption rate of around 50% in the western world and signifiant places outside of it (SA,India, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Brazil)

ayushnix 5y ago
I don't know of a single ISP in India which offers functional IPv6 in broadband connections. I won't consider 4G because it's almost useless (at least in India) for doing anything serious.
- unmole 5y ago
  Jio Fibre does. ACT used to in some places but it's inconsistent.
  - ayushnix 5y ago
    Last I checked, IPv6 on JioFibre was broken and I couldn't get a publicly discoverable IPv6 address. Have things changed?
    - maccolgan 5y ago
      Yes, JioFibre now (?) offers fully functional IPv6 all across the board, even in the most rural of places.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  Airtel certainly does in some places.
  - ayushnix 5y ago
    I checked my Airtel Fibre connection, IPv6 is explicitly disabled by Airtel and there's no option to enable it.
lanna 5y ago
> in the western world and signifiant places outside of it (SA,India, Thailand, Vietnam, Japan, Brazil) Brazil is western

franga2000 5y ago

This will be controversial, but: I think the EU should set a deadline for IPv6 adoption to ISPs and impose fines afterwards. They seem to be legislating all kinds of crazy things (like type C connectors), so it's quite within the realm of possibility, and unlike some other things, there really isn't a way they can screw this up. Rationale: It's in the custoners' best interest to have unique publically routable addresses and without IPv6 we'll be stuck with CGNAT. The providers don't care, because rollout is expensive. So, for the good of the customer, legislation with fines is needed to better align the financial incentives.

roenxi 5y ago
If it is good for a customer then the provider will care. The customer will switch ISPs to those that support IPv6. Then the IPv4-only providers will get less money.
- franga2000 5y ago
  Sure, if you ask an economist. But here in the real world, switching ISPs is hard (fees, lack of competition, replacing gear...) and the benefit of IPv6 isn't apparent yet to most people. By the time it becomes, it'll be too late and nobody will have it yet, so there won't be anywhere to switch anyways. There's a reason we have consumer protection regulation and much of it came as a result of situations where evryone thought, as you do, that the market/competition would solve the problem, but of course it didn't. That only happens in ideal markets where switching providers is trivial, the consumer is equally informed about all of them and the providers (and perhaps customers too) have equal economic power.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > But here in the real world... Your starting point was that any ISP who doesn't implement your preferred technical standard should be fined. With a disregard for whether IPv6 makes sense for them or their customers. You might detect a little pushback here on the idea that your ideas are real world. Laissez faire is a very practical approach. > By the time it becomes, it'll be too late and nobody will have it yet, so there won't be anywhere to switch anyways. A crisis so terrible I can't even imagine it. Nobody outside some fairly obscure tech circles would even notice. Imagine if they'd taken this approach rolling out IPv4 and weren't fast enough to change the legislation. The rollout of IPv6 would look really hard if IPv4 was a legislated requirement. The EU just isn't a competent technical standards body, and it has no business trying to be one because a couple of tech types like IPv6. > That only happens in ideal markets where switching providers is trivial... I switched providers to get IPv6 support. It was pretty trivial.

koolba 5y ago

> The decision to consume loopback address space has made me even more cynical about IPv6 ever becoming mainstream within my lifetime. Wait what? Are you saying that they’re going to allocate the loopback range as v4 addresses?

zozbot234 5y ago
The proposal is about shrinking the reserved loopback range from 127.0.0.0/8 to 127.0.0.0/16. Everything from 127.1 to 127.255 would then become ordinary IPv4 addresses.
- icedchai 5y ago
  This is just a proposal. It will likely never happen. The proposal to open 240/4 (former class-E / reserved IPv4 space) is more feasible.
- ericbarrett 5y ago
  Can't see this being useful. There are so many devices and so much software with 127.0.0.0/8 baked in that I suspect an address in the proposed range would be less routable (overall) than an IPv6-only endpoint, and remain so for years, even if it became official.
cesarb 5y ago
> Are you saying that they’re going to allocate the loopback range as v4 addresses? Yes, there's a proposal to do so, which was discussed here last week (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29246420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29246420 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29245466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29245466).

School-Cotton 5y ago

IPv6 is already mainstream in many countries, including the United States.