3 ms·

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 a

by 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.
- franga2000 5y ago
  > Your starting point was that any ISP who doesn't implement your preferred technical standard should be fined. "my preferred standard" == the only alternative to the current collapsing standard that has been agreed upon by industry leaders for some 20 years now. > With a disregard for whether IPv6 makes sense for them or their customers. IPv6 can't "not make sense", it can only "not be necessary yet". > A crisis so terrible I can't even imagine it. Nobody outside some fairly obscure tech circles would even notice. What, service costs going through the roof because the ISP now has to buy IPv4 addresses? Getting IP blocked from sites because the address you share with half the town got reported for spam? Not being able to access IPv6-only sites from smaller providers who can't afford to lease IPv4 addresses? And only then the ISPs start investing in it, which will take a few years to finish, all the while your service is shit? Pretty obscure, yeah. > I switched providers to get IPv6 support. It was pretty trivial. I've been trying to for several years and have not been able to for a multitude of reasons.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    >What, service costs going through the roof because the ISP now has to buy IPv4 addresses? If it was profitable, the ISP would do it and pocket the now unnecessary service costs. >Getting IP blocked from sites because the address you share with half the town got reported for spam? 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about. >Not being able to access IPv6-only sites from smaller providers who can't afford to lease IPv4 addresses? There aren't any. Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation.
    - notriddle 5y ago
      > 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about. It's not SMTP. It's StopForumSpam and CloudFlare that you need to worry about.
    - Dagger2 5y ago
      > If it was profitable, the ISP would do it and pocket the now unnecessary service costs. This is another "if you ask an economist" situation. In the real world, people will happily spend more effort justifying not doing v6 and working around problems caused by being v4-only than would be needed to just do v6. > 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about. This misses the point. It only takes one person behind CGNAT to get the CGNAT source IPs on a spam list, at which point it affects everyone. Plus spam exists on the web too, it's not an SMTP-only thing. > There aren't any. Which is exactly why it's so important to be deploying v6: so there can be v6-only sites. Or rather, more than there are at the moment, because they do exist. > Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation. I've seen an argument that it's already covered by existing legislation: the refusal of large/old providers to support v6, which forces the use of v4 which small/new providers can't get enough of, is beginning to look rather a lot like an abuse of market position. That would make it an anti-trust issue, which definitely falls within the remit of government.
      - yyyk 5y ago
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I switched providers to get IPv6 support. It was pretty trivial. Your use case is not everyone's. I was forced to change ISPs recently and didn't have a choice as to which one (which is another, unrelated, issue). I did some research and the ISP in question does provide IPv6 support for some customers. However, the sales drones I spoke with claimed to not even know what IPv6 was, let alone whether or not it was available in my area. I'd say that has more to do with the exorbitant fees they charge for static IPv4 addresses than anything else. As such, it's not always "pretty trivial" to get IPv6 on your ISP link. I sure wish it was. Edit: Clarified my prose.

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.

franga2000 5y ago
> Your starting point was that any ISP who doesn't implement your preferred technical standard should be fined. "my preferred standard" == the only alternative to the current collapsing standard that has been agreed upon by industry leaders for some 20 years now. > With a disregard for whether IPv6 makes sense for them or their customers. IPv6 can't "not make sense", it can only "not be necessary yet". > A crisis so terrible I can't even imagine it. Nobody outside some fairly obscure tech circles would even notice. What, service costs going through the roof because the ISP now has to buy IPv4 addresses? Getting IP blocked from sites because the address you share with half the town got reported for spam? Not being able to access IPv6-only sites from smaller providers who can't afford to lease IPv4 addresses? And only then the ISPs start investing in it, which will take a few years to finish, all the while your service is shit? Pretty obscure, yeah. > I switched providers to get IPv6 support. It was pretty trivial. I've been trying to for several years and have not been able to for a multitude of reasons.
- yyyk 5y ago
  >What, service costs going through the roof because the ISP now has to buy IPv4 addresses? If it was profitable, the ISP would do it and pocket the now unnecessary service costs. >Getting IP blocked from sites because the address you share with half the town got reported for spam? 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about. >Not being able to access IPv6-only sites from smaller providers who can't afford to lease IPv4 addresses? There aren't any. Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    > 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about. It's not SMTP. It's StopForumSpam and CloudFlare that you need to worry about.
  - Dagger2 5y ago
    > If it was profitable, the ISP would do it and pocket the now unnecessary service costs. This is another "if you ask an economist" situation. In the real world, people will happily spend more effort justifying not doing v6 and working around problems caused by being v4-only than would be needed to just do v6. > 99.9% people don't want to run their own SMTP server. It's an ultra-niche use case ISP don't care about. This misses the point. It only takes one person behind CGNAT to get the CGNAT source IPs on a spam list, at which point it affects everyone. Plus spam exists on the web too, it's not an SMTP-only thing. > There aren't any. Which is exactly why it's so important to be deploying v6: so there can be v6-only sites. Or rather, more than there are at the moment, because they do exist. > Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation. I've seen an argument that it's already covered by existing legislation: the refusal of large/old providers to support v6, which forces the use of v4 which small/new providers can't get enough of, is beginning to look rather a lot like an abuse of market position. That would make it an anti-trust issue, which definitely falls within the remit of government.
    - yyyk 5y ago
nobody9999 5y ago
>I switched providers to get IPv6 support. It was pretty trivial. Your use case is not everyone's. I was forced to change ISPs recently and didn't have a choice as to which one (which is another, unrelated, issue). I did some research and the ISP in question does provide IPv6 support for some customers. However, the sales drones I spoke with claimed to not even know what IPv6 was, let alone whether or not it was available in my area. I'd say that has more to do with the exorbitant fees they charge for static IPv4 addresses than anything else. As such, it's not always "pretty trivial" to get IPv6 on your ISP link. I sure wish it was. Edit: Clarified my prose.