3 ms·

> But it's built on top of similar unfulfilled promise: we're running out IPv4 addresses. It’s not an unfulfilled promise. We’re out of IPv4 addresses and have

> But it's built on top of similar unfulfilled promise: we're running out IPv4 addresses. It’s not an unfulfilled promise. We’re out of IPv4 addresses and have been for almost a decade. NAT444444444444444444444 is not the solution.

ddtaylor 4y ago
Sure, but the end result is that nobody can host a service with an ipv4 address only. You would be missing out on the majority of your audience.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  You absolutely can. I’m single stacking IPv6 on my fresh hetzner box. Cloudflare in front of web services and it just works(tm). For everything else - Argo can do arbitrary TCP (requires cloudflared though) and then you can start bugging your ISP about the very real need for IPv6.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    > Cloudflare in front of web services and it just works(tm). Well... yeah? That's adding support for both stacks; just because you farmed it out to a middle-man doesn't mean that it's not there.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      > Well... yeah? That's adding support for both stacks; just because you farmed it out to a middle-man doesn't mean that it's not there. Not strictly true. It means that you only have to worry about IPv6 addresses in Layer 7, and you can forget about layers 2 and 3 altogether. And Layer 7 isn’t a problem for people who should be deploying IPv6 right now because https://ipv6bingo.com/ https://ipv6bingo.com/
oleg_antonyan 4y ago
Well, most providers worldwide still use IPv4 which means that cost of switching to IPv6 is higher than cost of maintaining workarounds for 10 years, and who knows, maybe it will be the same for another 10 years
- rekoil 4y ago
  No it's higher because they've started charging for IPv4 addresses, they don't want to lose their cash cow...
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    But it's really not. About 85% of the entire public IPv4 range is currently announced. Transfering IPv4 prefixes comes with a 2 year transfer restriction period. IPv4 addresses currently cost about $50, and you have to buy an entire subnet at once, minimum /24. It makes perfect sense to start charging for them if you're running out of them and don't want to buy additional prefixes. Not to mention that there's also additional cost involved in case someone was using that particular address (or even worse multiple addresses from the same /24) for spam or malicious purposes, because that means that the entire prefix is currently trashed and there's some effort involved for it to be removed from all the independently maintained blacklists etc.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  Yes, having everyone involved learn IPv6 is more expensive than burying your head in the sand and adding another 4 at the end of NAT444444444444444444444, but at some point it’ll just be too ridiculous.
eknkc 4y ago
It has been Good Enough™ unfortunately. At this point I feel like we will never see IPv6 fully deployed.

ddtaylor 4y ago

Sure, but the end result is that nobody can host a service with an ipv4 address only. You would be missing out on the majority of your audience.

sgjohnson 4y ago
You absolutely can. I’m single stacking IPv6 on my fresh hetzner box. Cloudflare in front of web services and it just works(tm). For everything else - Argo can do arbitrary TCP (requires cloudflared though) and then you can start bugging your ISP about the very real need for IPv6.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > Cloudflare in front of web services and it just works(tm). Well... yeah? That's adding support for both stacks; just because you farmed it out to a middle-man doesn't mean that it's not there.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    > Well... yeah? That's adding support for both stacks; just because you farmed it out to a middle-man doesn't mean that it's not there. Not strictly true. It means that you only have to worry about IPv6 addresses in Layer 7, and you can forget about layers 2 and 3 altogether. And Layer 7 isn’t a problem for people who should be deploying IPv6 right now because https://ipv6bingo.com/ https://ipv6bingo.com/

oleg_antonyan 4y ago

Well, most providers worldwide still use IPv4 which means that cost of switching to IPv6 is higher than cost of maintaining workarounds for 10 years, and who knows, maybe it will be the same for another 10 years

rekoil 4y ago
No it's higher because they've started charging for IPv4 addresses, they don't want to lose their cash cow...
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  But it's really not. About 85% of the entire public IPv4 range is currently announced. Transfering IPv4 prefixes comes with a 2 year transfer restriction period. IPv4 addresses currently cost about $50, and you have to buy an entire subnet at once, minimum /24. It makes perfect sense to start charging for them if you're running out of them and don't want to buy additional prefixes. Not to mention that there's also additional cost involved in case someone was using that particular address (or even worse multiple addresses from the same /24) for spam or malicious purposes, because that means that the entire prefix is currently trashed and there's some effort involved for it to be removed from all the independently maintained blacklists etc.
sgjohnson 4y ago
Yes, having everyone involved learn IPv6 is more expensive than burying your head in the sand and adding another 4 at the end of NAT444444444444444444444, but at some point it’ll just be too ridiculous.

eknkc 4y ago

It has been Good Enough™ unfortunately. At this point I feel like we will never see IPv6 fully deployed.