6 ms·
This is required by law. [0][1] Every ISP is required to be fully ipv6-enabled by the end of this year. The deadline has been pushed back multiple times , most
by ghoul2 4y ago
This is required by law. [0][1]
Every ISP is required to be fully ipv6-enabled by the end of this year. The deadline has been pushed back multiple times , most recently due to covid. But this time it seems its going to stick. All lagging ISPs seem to have deployed v6 at this time.
There has been a "National IPV6 Plan" in place since 2010, and full coverage has been pushed under that plan in stages. Anyone interested can read all about it in (extensive) detail[2].
0. https://dot.gov.in/ipv6-transition https://dot.gov.in/ipv6-transition
1. https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Revision%20in%20IPV6%20Transition%20timelines.pdf https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Revision%20in%20IPV6%...
2. https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2016_11_18%20IPv6%20NT.pdf https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2016_11_18%20IPv6%20N...
- 9dev 4y agoWhy is it so hard to pull off the same regulation in other parts of the world? It isn’t like supporting IPv6 is black magic…
- yellow_lead 4y agoFor the US, if I had to guess, ISPs have huge lobbying presence in Washington. Of course they won't want to make more work for themselves.
- qalmakka 4y agoCGNAT is pretty expensive compared to rolling out IPv6 and tunneling IPv4 on it using stuff like MAP-E. I guess they still have no need to NAT everyone ATM because they have plenty of IPv4s to distribute to their subscribers.
- api 4y agoThat is correct. My ISP in Ohio gives me both IPv6 and global V4.
- Scoundreller 4y agoCGNAT is pretty much the only setup on mobile though. Dunno if any equipment vendor doesn’t do that. Would worry about most average cell phones sitting directly on the public internet. I think there’s a reason we haven’t heard about mass-owns of mobile phones and it’s because they’re always effectively behind firewalls, not because of their superior security.
- qalmakka 4y agoThis is not correct. Especially in the USA lots of mobile phones now have IPv6 connectivity. From https://www.arin.net/blog/2020/01/16/mobile-edge-of-the-internet-is-rapidly-moving-to-ipv6/ https://www.arin.net/blog/2020/01/16/mobile-edge-of-the-inte... "80% of smartphones in the US on the major cellular network operators use IPv6 and major mobile networks are driving IPv6 adoption with Verizon Wireless at 84%, Sprint at 70%, T-Mobile USA at 93%, and AT&T Wireless at 57%" And this were numbers from four years ago. NAT is not a firewall and it's dangerous to think of it as such, because it causes people to follow a lax approach to security and think they are protected, when they actually aren't.
- Scoundreller 4y agoThat’s fine and all: but are they issuing mobile phones a publicly addressable IP or not? Can a Verizon subscriber run a web server on their mobile phone and share their IPv6 or not?
- qalmakka 4y agoNAT66 is, in general, utterly broken and most OSes prefer IPv4 to ULAs - thus, if a mobile subscriber can connect to an external IPv6 service, it's very likely the address they were given by their carrier is publicly routable.
- theamk 4y agoFrom practical standpoint, most common NAT setups come with "default deny incoming" firewall, and systems have relied on this fot a very long time. I hope that IPv6 is rolled out to homes, most ISPs would do the right thing and set up customer routers firewall in "default deny incoming " mode. Otherwise, the number of worms would increase a lot.
- Duralias 4y agoFor some reason CGNAT seems to be the norm here in Sweden, IPv6 is still almost nowhere to be seen, only existing in a select few cities. I've been behind CGNAT since I think 2010, at first with DSL with a small ISP and then with one of the big ones with fiber (bredband2), who introduced CGNAT many years ago to prepare for moving to IPv6, which they have still yet to do. They even stopped supporting their 6rd tunnel apparently.
- kube-system 4y agoIndia has lots of people and not much IPv4. The US has lots of IPv4 and not nearly as many people.
- Grimburger 4y agoIs it the ISP's or holders of address blocks? I wonder how much all the IPv4's on Earth are worth.
- tpxl 4y agoThey apparently go for 20-60$/IP. That can tell us something about why large IP holders don't want IPv6, it would reduce their 'investment' to near 0.
- kube-system 4y agoIs the reason this regulation doesn’t exist elsewhere because it is difficult? Maybe other places just don’t have a desire to regulate this.
- 9dev 4y agoObviously they will need to sooner or later. IPv4 address space is mostly depleted; at one point or another, regulation is the only thing that will help.
- kube-system 4y agoIt is possible to use IPv6 without being compelled by law.
- cypress66 4y agoBecause generally it would be a bad idea for the government to force certain technologies upon the private sector, even if in this case it might be fine.
- 9dev 4y agoForcing micro USB and now USB-C on electronic devices has been one of the best ideas by the EU overall. Remember using ten different charging cables? Gone, due to a helpful piece of regulation by the government.
- wil421 4y agoI still have the same issue as before except I’ve added a suite of USB C connectors. I still have micro/mini and regular USB devices on top of all the USB C stuff. Not to mention the premium for a USB C charger.
- sgtnoodle 4y agoYou have to admit it's a better connector mechanically, though. Also, the vast majority of USB-C devices charge fine from USB-A. The devices that require an expensive charger are things that have previously required a proprietary charger, like laptops.
- Scoundreller 4y ago> the vast majority of USB-C devices charge fine from USB-A I’ve gotten myself stuck a few times with this assumption. My MacBook Air (and probably any MacBook) will accept a trickle at 5V, but my Dell laptop will not.
- Scoundreller 4y ago> Not to mention the premium for a USB C charger. Only if you want fast charging. I run my MacBook Air over a USB-A to USB-C cable and it slowly charges under light use at around 2.5A and 5V. And tops off to 100% while not in operation. If you want more voltage, then yeah, you’ll need a more specialized charger, whether USB-C or proprietary.
- guilhas 4y agoBecause there is no significant benefit to the consumer
- 9dev 4y agoIt has: significantly cheaper internet access once providers have to charge extra for expensive v4 addresses, complex NAT solutions and gateways.
- ftth_finland 4y agoSignificantly cheaper is a bit of an overstatement. Savings are pretty much capped at one month of internet service, as that’s roughly what an IPv4 address costs.
- olivermuty 4y ago8.33% is not a significant gain to you?
- ftth_finland 4y agoNot really, especially as it’s not 8.33%, since it’s not a yearly cost, but a lifetime cost.
- xbmcuser 4y agoIndian isp are not using IPv6 though they seem to assign most users local Nat addresses my guess is looking how cheap internet is in India using real IPv6 addresses would increase internet prices
- alserio 4y agoCan I ask you why? What makes using ipv6 more expensive?
- cebert 4y agoI have no basis for this, but I would have to imagine router tables are significantly larger with IPv6, hence higher costs due increased complexity.
- terom 4y agoIt's intended to be the opposite with fewer IPv6 prefixes needed, compared to the level of fragmentation for global IPv4 deployments combining many smaller prefixes to scavenge enough address space. IPv4 930k -> 515k aggregated https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ IPv6 161k -> 86k aggregated https://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ https://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ Both of those are nothing compared to the requirements for CGNAT, tracking each individual TCP session.
- samarthr1 4y agoAh, but tracking each session is needed for censorship purposes no?
- xfalcox 4y agoWe had the same in Brazil, scheduled per connection type (DOCSIS was first, etc). It's the only way IPv6 will happen, and more people should push for this.
- luckman212 4y agoYeah, looking at you Verizon FIOS.
- baybal2 4y agoIt seems it was in plans for a long time undetected, but then they committed to enforcing it when Jio took off.