4 ms·

>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 unneces

by 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
  >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. Yea, I don't like silly economism too, and I know half the jokes too. However, right now IPv4 addresses aren't so expensive. Sure, way more expensive than the 0 bucks they should cost, but not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. Here's a very rough calculation: The cost of IPv4 will start to bite when getting the needed addresses costs more than a single engineer salary where one lives. If a one time address buy costs less, it's not something business would care much for, and anti-trust won't touch it. I'm not smart enough to be able to forecast pricing, right now it's not there yet. Eventually the price will force every public network to IPv6, while many private networks will remain IPv4 forever.
lillecarl 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. 99.9% of services you can get banned from aren't SMTP. There are many other services which you can be IP banned from. > Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation. "Just an internet addressing protocol" kinda puts the entire internet to shame doesn't it? It's important that people can communicate on the internet, with IPv4 we decrease reliability and increase cost (in the long run) for everyone except those who sucked up as many addresses as possible early on. But if we are to follow your reasoning: A common charging port is just a port, doesn't require legislation A standard protocol for troubleshooting your car is just a protocol, doesn't require legislation * which brings benefits to billions of people but you don't agree with, doesn't require legislation That one thing you agree with that probably isn't important for a lot of people, requires legislation. Let's raise the standard and discuss why IPv6 is necessary or not and what implications it has for consumers. IPv6 decreases privacy because you're not sharing an IP with half of town, which is bad. Even if you're randomizing v6 on the local subnet you're still in the same /64 so it's still relatively easy to track you. P2P protocols actually work properly with IPv6 since machines can commmunicate directly with each other. IPv6 is more complex to understand the addressing scheme in. IPv6 isn't IPv4, so there's a learning curve. IPv6 encourages decentralization. IPv4 enourages centralization, because you can't get addresses anymore you can't start up new ISP's and we could call that anti-competetive. It also encourages proprietary solutions like cloudflared, or just hosting your stuff on AWS rather than in a colocated datacenter, because you can't get access to IP addresses. We can't stack unlimited people on top of IPv4 either, there are only so many port numbers available. And NAT is just such a major PITA to work with.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > It also encourages proprietary solutions like cloudflared, or just hosting your stuff on AWS rather than in a colocated datacenter, because you can't get access to IP addresses. Obtaining an IPv4 address is not an issue I ever had with hosting. People are using Cloudflare, Akamai or ELB because they are sick of script-kiddies buying a DDoS for 10$ an hour and extorting businesses for 1000$ and/or because they have customers from other continents complaining about load times.
kaliszad 5y ago
There are some services and sites that run IPv6-only. Some are for testing, sure, like this one: https://www.nebezi.cz/ https://www.nebezi.cz/ some are because they are cheaper to run/ easier to setup e.g. some FreeBSD mirrors.

by yyyk 5y ago

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
>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. Yea, I don't like silly economism too, and I know half the jokes too. However, right now IPv4 addresses aren't so expensive. Sure, way more expensive than the 0 bucks they should cost, but not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. Here's a very rough calculation: The cost of IPv4 will start to bite when getting the needed addresses costs more than a single engineer salary where one lives. If a one time address buy costs less, it's not something business would care much for, and anti-trust won't touch it. I'm not smart enough to be able to forecast pricing, right now it's not there yet. Eventually the price will force every public network to IPv6, while many private networks will remain IPv4 forever.

lillecarl 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. 99.9% of services you can get banned from aren't SMTP. There are many other services which you can be IP banned from. > Look, it's just an internet addressing protocol, not something that justifies legislation. "Just an internet addressing protocol" kinda puts the entire internet to shame doesn't it? It's important that people can communicate on the internet, with IPv4 we decrease reliability and increase cost (in the long run) for everyone except those who sucked up as many addresses as possible early on. But if we are to follow your reasoning: A common charging port is just a port, doesn't require legislation A standard protocol for troubleshooting your car is just a protocol, doesn't require legislation * which brings benefits to billions of people but you don't agree with, doesn't require legislation That one thing you agree with that probably isn't important for a lot of people, requires legislation. Let's raise the standard and discuss why IPv6 is necessary or not and what implications it has for consumers. IPv6 decreases privacy because you're not sharing an IP with half of town, which is bad. Even if you're randomizing v6 on the local subnet you're still in the same /64 so it's still relatively easy to track you. P2P protocols actually work properly with IPv6 since machines can commmunicate directly with each other. IPv6 is more complex to understand the addressing scheme in. IPv6 isn't IPv4, so there's a learning curve. IPv6 encourages decentralization. IPv4 enourages centralization, because you can't get addresses anymore you can't start up new ISP's and we could call that anti-competetive. It also encourages proprietary solutions like cloudflared, or just hosting your stuff on AWS rather than in a colocated datacenter, because you can't get access to IP addresses. We can't stack unlimited people on top of IPv4 either, there are only so many port numbers available. And NAT is just such a major PITA to work with.

mschuster91 5y ago
> It also encourages proprietary solutions like cloudflared, or just hosting your stuff on AWS rather than in a colocated datacenter, because you can't get access to IP addresses. Obtaining an IPv4 address is not an issue I ever had with hosting. People are using Cloudflare, Akamai or ELB because they are sick of script-kiddies buying a DDoS for 10$ an hour and extorting businesses for 1000$ and/or because they have customers from other continents complaining about load times.

kaliszad 5y ago

There are some services and sites that run IPv6-only. Some are for testing, sure, like this one: https://www.nebezi.cz/ https://www.nebezi.cz/ some are because they are cheaper to run/ easier to setup e.g. some FreeBSD mirrors.