9 ms·

Too much of the web is mobile these days to be dismissing it. Yes, mobiles on v6-only with NAT64 to reach legacy v4 hosts is a massive success story. How can y

Too much of the web is mobile these days to be dismissing it. Yes, mobiles on v6-only with NAT64 to reach legacy v4 hosts is a massive success story. How can you say with a straight face that it's not? Most big landline ISPs in the US are doing v6. Comcast, the poster child for awful ISPs, winner of multiple worst company in America awards, has been running v6 over their entire network for years now.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Because you should talk to an ipv6 person and say the word "NAT". They froth at the mouth. It IS a success, but it's a success that is singularly enabled by the #1 thing that ipv6 people hate with a passion: a NAT. The evil NAT that has kept IPV4 address space alive, that was the crutch that kept ipv6 from being adopted earlier. The evil NAT isn't a firewall, the evil NAT can be replaced by string-of-acronyms. And, it's a success which paves the way for practically any protocol to replace ipv6 as the real successor, like the casually thrown out ipv4.4++v2, which is getting dismissed right and left by the ipv6 people here. Or god forbid a better protocol. Please give me ipv8. Not that I was in the room, but it's apparent that the mobile success is due to the fact the cartel of phone makers and spectrum owners/mobile carriers got in a room and adopted ipv6 head to toe. I would like to know if the FCC had a role here, or it's just that the mobile carrier industry is used to adopting new standards so this wasn't a big deal, or it was the OEMs that enforced/enabled it. For the rest of ipv4-land, where is this cooperation/regulation/coordination for migrating? My comcast modems do not support ipv6 last I tried, but that was three years ago. Maybe the magic wand has been waved finally. But I look at this thread and think: Eh, nope.
- ipython 4y ago
  No need for conspiracies - see for example the presentations from T-Mobile to nanog: 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/... and 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..., just for two examples after thirty seconds of googling. Comcast has had ipv6 support rolled out for some time now. I don’t know why you don’t see it.
- Dagger2 4y ago
  Mobile carriers want v6 because it saves them money. CGNAT capacity is expensive. Having native v6 means that >50% of your traffic won't need to touch the CGNAT, which reduces your costs significantly. NAT is a necessary evil to deal with address space exhaustion in v4. NAT64 is just another application of that. In v6, when not dealing with backwards compatibility to v4, NAT is an unnecessary evil. Do you see the difference? > And, it's a success which paves the way for practically any protocol to replace ipv6 as the real successor, like the casually thrown out ipv4.4++v2, which is getting dismissed right and left by the ipv6 people here. It's being dismissed because it brings nothing new to the table. The people casually throwing out alternatives aren't thinking through them enough to realize that they've either come up with something that doesn't work, or they've come up with something that's basically v6 and has the same limitations v6 does. There's zero point in replacing v6 -- which 40% of the Internet's clients are already using -- with another protocol that's just as hard to deploy.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

Because you should talk to an ipv6 person and say the word "NAT". They froth at the mouth. It IS a success, but it's a success that is singularly enabled by the #1 thing that ipv6 people hate with a passion: a NAT. The evil NAT that has kept IPV4 address space alive, that was the crutch that kept ipv6 from being adopted earlier. The evil NAT isn't a firewall, the evil NAT can be replaced by string-of-acronyms. And, it's a success which paves the way for practically any protocol to replace ipv6 as the real successor, like the casually thrown out ipv4.4++v2, which is getting dismissed right and left by the ipv6 people here. Or god forbid a better protocol. Please give me ipv8. Not that I was in the room, but it's apparent that the mobile success is due to the fact the cartel of phone makers and spectrum owners/mobile carriers got in a room and adopted ipv6 head to toe. I would like to know if the FCC had a role here, or it's just that the mobile carrier industry is used to adopting new standards so this wasn't a big deal, or it was the OEMs that enforced/enabled it. For the rest of ipv4-land, where is this cooperation/regulation/coordination for migrating? My comcast modems do not support ipv6 last I tried, but that was three years ago. Maybe the magic wand has been waved finally. But I look at this thread and think: Eh, nope.

ipython 4y ago
No need for conspiracies - see for example the presentations from T-Mobile to nanog: 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/... and 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..., just for two examples after thirty seconds of googling. Comcast has had ipv6 support rolled out for some time now. I don’t know why you don’t see it.
Dagger2 4y ago
Mobile carriers want v6 because it saves them money. CGNAT capacity is expensive. Having native v6 means that >50% of your traffic won't need to touch the CGNAT, which reduces your costs significantly. NAT is a necessary evil to deal with address space exhaustion in v4. NAT64 is just another application of that. In v6, when not dealing with backwards compatibility to v4, NAT is an unnecessary evil. Do you see the difference? > And, it's a success which paves the way for practically any protocol to replace ipv6 as the real successor, like the casually thrown out ipv4.4++v2, which is getting dismissed right and left by the ipv6 people here. It's being dismissed because it brings nothing new to the table. The people casually throwing out alternatives aren't thinking through them enough to realize that they've either come up with something that doesn't work, or they've come up with something that's basically v6 and has the same limitations v6 does. There's zero point in replacing v6 -- which 40% of the Internet's clients are already using -- with another protocol that's just as hard to deploy.