3 ms·
I think for a long time the only thing that will push IPv6 uptake will be legislation. ISPs don't want to implement it because their customers aren't pushing t
by Navarr 5y ago
I think for a long time the only thing that will push IPv6 uptake will be legislation.
ISPs don't want to implement it because their customers aren't pushing them to, because websites aren't typically IPv6-only, because that's a terrible business model.
So unless we force or incentivize ISPs to implement IPv6 access through law, it's going to be a long time before we hit the breaking point where something HAS to be done by ISPs
- count 5y agoLOL. IPv6 usage has been mandated by legislation for years for the Federal Govt. in the US. And yet....mostly no adoption.
- ramshanker 5y agoIndia has mandated IPv6 for all existing or new internet connection by Dec 2022.
- nanis 5y ago> I think for a long time the only thing that will push IPv6 uptake will be legislation. Is it really such a great idea to force every single device on the internet to be globally uniquely identifiable?
- kd913 5y agoYes it is. We have run out of ipv4 addresses, CGNATs cause problems with self-hosting, ipv4 allocations are not fair and are driving up the cost of infrastructure/access. Particularly problematic in developing Countries. Security is not an argument, ipv6 firewalls have existed for a long period now. If we want to make the internet to scale then we need to encourage the use of ipv6.
- acdha 5y agoIs that really what's happening? It gives each device an address which is unique at the time but those devices get new addresses periodically when the network configuration changes, they roam networks, etc. and there's no global registry linking addresses to people or even the same device. From another angle, most people are walking around with a globally-unique identifier (IMEI) in their pocket with all kinds of sensors. Does using IPv6 materially change the situation for any attacker?
- fomine3 5y agoIn IPv4, dynamically leasing different IP address by connecting is a mitigation of lack of address stock (at least dialup from PC era, I don't know how much effective in router era). In IPv6, ISPs don't need to do that so they can just lease dedicated IP block to customer. Then they don't need logging IP-to-customer-by-time for investigation.
- xxpor 5y agoIf you really care, almost everyone's IPv6 implementation includes prefix delegation. Jump around your prefix instead. A lot of countries already require ISPs that do CGNAT to keep a connection log so your individual connection can still be traced back to you
- rsj_hn 5y agoSo curious, what is wrong with just letting people switch over as they need to? What does it matter if the switch is sped up by a few years? Some are happy with their current ipv4 addresses, and then maybe if they need to buy new ones only ipv6 will be available at which point they can decide for themselves to switch over. As long as browsers and DNS services can work with both, it shouldn't matter, right? Here I'm assuming that infra teams already have a lot to do and would experience some harm having the government give them more user stories. Maybe not tons of harm, but what is the other side of the equation that justifies the harm?
- Navarr 5y agoCould incentivize instead of force; I don't think that's causing any harm - right?
- rsj_hn 5y agoYou mean, give them cash for switching? No, that certainly wont harm them, but, uh, there might be better uses for that cash.
- p1mrx 5y ago> So curious, what is wrong with just letting people switch over as they need to? It's a principal-agent problem. There are lots of people who want IPv6, but can't get it because their local ISP doesn't care.