3 ms·

I wonder when (or if) we will see new IPv6 only ISPs. That would be an indication that the transition is actually happening. Even though you note that most of y

by marbu 5y ago

I wonder when (or if) we will see new IPv6 only ISPs. That would be an indication that the transition is actually happening. Even though you note that most of your internet communications are done over IPv6, I doubt that you would be willing to go for IPv6 only ISP. Lack of IPv4 addresses is a problem for new ISPs trying to enter the market, as even with levels of NAT, you need some minimal address space to serve your customers, which is harder and more expensive to get. So on one hand starting with IPv6 only stack would avoid these problems, but on the other hand it also means that every potential customer will be unhappy and in the end, you won't get many customers willing to pay you for IPv6 only connection.

throw0101a 5y ago
> I wonder when (or if) we will see new IPv6 only ISPs. If you have a mobile device on US T-Mobile you only get a IPv6 address on it: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE * https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/20180625_Lagerholm_T-Mobile_S_Journey_To_v1.pdf https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/... * https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-mobile-us-goes-ipv6-only-using-464xlat/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas... Any access to IPv4 is through a proxy.
- jandrese 5y ago
  As long as your ISP supports 6 to 4 tunneling it is really no problem.
- marbu 5y ago
  This is very good example how an ISP can move to IPv6, but my comment was mostly speculating about the IPv4 part. Even US T-Mobile needs to have a bunch of IPv4 addresses to maintain it's IPv4 proxy (and the size of IPv4 address space they need is determined by the size of their expected customer base). So I was wondering when/if company in a similar situation would not feel the need to maintain IPv4 proxy or would seriously evaluate whether they still need it wrt of cost of the IPv4 address space necessary and potential loss caused by customers who would not be ok with missing IPv4 internet. But maybe such speculation is missing the point, and cost of the IPv4 addresses is not as bad as keeping dual IPv4/IPv6 stack running in a datacenter. I don't know. That said, you definitely have a point that right now, I should rather wonder how many other ISPs are moving to IPv6 only stack with IPv4 proxy like US T-Mobile did. Here I would definitely expect that telcos today are moving in this direction when planning new infrastructure (eg. for edge).
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    I think that once customers are only assigned IPv6 addresses, then IPv4 is a bit of a sunk cost with regards to addresses. You may be left with the 'overhead' of running the proxies for the IPv4 Internet.
lmm 5y ago
Look at how long it took ISPs to turn off Usenet. I'm sure they'll keep running DS-Lite for decades to come, but they'll gradually allocate less and less resources to it, maybe put clauses in peering agreements that they pay less to upstreams who are IPv4-only. And then eventually IPv4 will become an optional extra, and then outsourced to one of a handful of firms still handling it...

by marbu 5y ago

throw0101a 5y ago

> I wonder when (or if) we will see new IPv6 only ISPs. If you have a mobile device on US T-Mobile you only get a IPv6 address on it: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE * https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/20180625_Lagerholm_T-Mobile_S_Journey_To_v1.pdf https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/... * https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-mobile-us-goes-ipv6-only-using-464xlat/ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas... Any access to IPv4 is through a proxy.

jandrese 5y ago
As long as your ISP supports 6 to 4 tunneling it is really no problem.
marbu 5y ago
This is very good example how an ISP can move to IPv6, but my comment was mostly speculating about the IPv4 part. Even US T-Mobile needs to have a bunch of IPv4 addresses to maintain it's IPv4 proxy (and the size of IPv4 address space they need is determined by the size of their expected customer base). So I was wondering when/if company in a similar situation would not feel the need to maintain IPv4 proxy or would seriously evaluate whether they still need it wrt of cost of the IPv4 address space necessary and potential loss caused by customers who would not be ok with missing IPv4 internet. But maybe such speculation is missing the point, and cost of the IPv4 addresses is not as bad as keeping dual IPv4/IPv6 stack running in a datacenter. I don't know. That said, you definitely have a point that right now, I should rather wonder how many other ISPs are moving to IPv6 only stack with IPv4 proxy like US T-Mobile did. Here I would definitely expect that telcos today are moving in this direction when planning new infrastructure (eg. for edge).
- throw0101a 5y ago
  I think that once customers are only assigned IPv6 addresses, then IPv4 is a bit of a sunk cost with regards to addresses. You may be left with the 'overhead' of running the proxies for the IPv4 Internet.

lmm 5y ago

Look at how long it took ISPs to turn off Usenet. I'm sure they'll keep running DS-Lite for decades to come, but they'll gradually allocate less and less resources to it, maybe put clauses in peering agreements that they pay less to upstreams who are IPv4-only. And then eventually IPv4 will become an optional extra, and then outsourced to one of a handful of firms still handling it...