3 ms·
Windows Vista came out in 2007, and it explicitly had a dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 implementation. Around that same time, the BSDs were finishing up KAME, and Linux s
by unquietwiki 4y ago
Windows Vista came out in 2007, and it explicitly had a dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 implementation. Around that same time, the BSDs were finishing up KAME, and Linux support was decently mature. That was 15 years ago. Software and OS-wise; with the exception of some features of Mikrotik routers + managed Meraki & Ubiquiti stuff just now getting onboard; the support is there. Node's using it properly now. I was able to update Pidgin to use it 10+ years ago. So I think we've got the software-side long figured out; we just needed to get the damn vendors on-board.
I'm glad we agree on NAT sucking. Though given a lot of ISPs are doing DHCPv6 without fixed net-ranges to clients; a work environment does benefit from having ULAs still; sometimes even with NAT66. Performance & security-wise, IPv6 still wins that battle: most routers disable automatic inbound traffic, and you can pinhole traffic directly between hosts.
- BizarroLand 4y agoI'm willing to bet that every ISP in America has IPV6 capabilities but the ones that have not activated it have done so out of corporate lethargy. The bosses aren't yelling, "TURN ON IPV6 AND MAKE IT WORK" so the peons have no reason to flip the switches. The bosses have no reason to push for IPV6 as it will increase support costs and add work hours but it will not increase income or improve profits. We need a mandate from the FCC that says that any ISP that has accepted federal funds to build or deploy internet access systems must turn on IPV6 to the consumer or face penalties. Short of that, it's not going to happen.