3 ms·

If home router manufacturers would get their shit together, IPv6 would not be hard to deploy. I get it, it's chicken and egg, but nothing about IPv6 is inherent

If home router manufacturers would get their shit together, IPv6 would not be hard to deploy. I get it, it's chicken and egg, but nothing about IPv6 is inherently more difficult than IPv4 other than the length of the address. The reason IPv6 on a home network is still difficult is because the routers everyone buys at Best Buy still blow at supporting IPv6. Ubiquiti blows at supporting IPv6. It is laziness and/or incompetence of device manufacturers, primarily, holding us back. (and incompetence around IPv6 in general - I talked to a network guy at a large company recently and they were deploying /58s. WHY?!) The benefits of IPv6 may not be just for you - it's for the planet, it's for the developing nations, it's for the future where IPv4 does not cut it. It's bigger than your home network.

wankle 4y ago
IPv4 cuts it everywhere. IPv6 does not do anything to save the planet. IPv6 does have privacy concerns stated by many on this page. IPv6 could be shut down tomorrow and the Internet would continue working well.
- CircleSpokes 4y ago
  No it wouldn't. Basically all mobile networks would break and have to do even more layers of NAT to meet demand. > IPv6 does not do anything to save the planet. The world doesn't have enough IPV4 addresses. It literally solves the problem. It is crazy to me so many people here are arguing for multileveled NAT instead of the obvious solution we have had for 20 years.
  - wankle 4y ago
    > The world doesn't have enough IPV4 addresses. If 8 billion people wanted to host their own email and web, yes, we'd not have enough addresses for each person to have one. That isn't the case though. It will never be the case. If we look into the future and say well in 2023 5% of the world's population ran their own email and web for personal or business purposes and that number were to grow by 5% every year then in 20 years we would run out. That's a worse case, contrived scenario but even in that case, we'd still have 20 years to come up with something better than IPv6 that truly respects privacy and doesn't track each person.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      The world has been out of IPv4 addresses for more than a decade. Which is horrible news for competition alone. Try starting a new ISP. You’ll either do CGNAT on a single /24 of v4 space, or you’ll have to spend tens of millions for some pointless, legacy IP addresses.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  I don't think EUI-64 being built into link-local fe80 addresses is a privacy issue. Link-local addresses don't get routed, so nothing outside of that network will see or know about them. As far as the router itself, e.g. your ISPs router, it can already gather MAC addresses if it wanted to, so IPv6 using the MAC to generate link-local addresses doesn't add or remove to that situation. CGNAT is not the Internet working well. CGNAT makes you have to have your ISPs permission and coordination to originate outgoing traffic--imagine if you had to ask the power company for permission to operate each electrical device in your house.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
What I don't understand is why governments seemingly ignore this problem ?? Look at what they did with broadcast digital TV : it was announced that it would be illegal in a couple of years to sell hardware not compatible with the new standard, then a couple of years later on illegal to sell hardware compatible with the old standard...
- bert64 4y ago
  Some are... China, India, Israel all mandate IPv6 support from ISPs in their territory and the equipment they provide to users, as do some others. The US has mandated IPv6 support for federal contracts since 2009, although they don't get involved outside of those directly providing services to the government itself. They now have plans to go IPv6-only, and eliminate the use of legacy IP within the federal government. Allocation of legacy address space was always based on first come first served, so developed countries got the lions share of address space and left developing countries with scraps. This creates a severe inequality, and holds developing countries back. This is also why India and China are leading, as they have a huge disparity between their population and the number of legacy addresses available.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    Yeah, though I've heard that Africa is being left out, once again ? (Though the sooner we ban IPv4, the sooner they will stop using it too...)

wankle 4y ago

IPv4 cuts it everywhere. IPv6 does not do anything to save the planet. IPv6 does have privacy concerns stated by many on this page. IPv6 could be shut down tomorrow and the Internet would continue working well.

CircleSpokes 4y ago
No it wouldn't. Basically all mobile networks would break and have to do even more layers of NAT to meet demand. > IPv6 does not do anything to save the planet. The world doesn't have enough IPV4 addresses. It literally solves the problem. It is crazy to me so many people here are arguing for multileveled NAT instead of the obvious solution we have had for 20 years.
- wankle 4y ago
  > The world doesn't have enough IPV4 addresses. If 8 billion people wanted to host their own email and web, yes, we'd not have enough addresses for each person to have one. That isn't the case though. It will never be the case. If we look into the future and say well in 2023 5% of the world's population ran their own email and web for personal or business purposes and that number were to grow by 5% every year then in 20 years we would run out. That's a worse case, contrived scenario but even in that case, we'd still have 20 years to come up with something better than IPv6 that truly respects privacy and doesn't track each person.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    The world has been out of IPv4 addresses for more than a decade. Which is horrible news for competition alone. Try starting a new ISP. You’ll either do CGNAT on a single /24 of v4 space, or you’ll have to spend tens of millions for some pointless, legacy IP addresses.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
I don't think EUI-64 being built into link-local fe80 addresses is a privacy issue. Link-local addresses don't get routed, so nothing outside of that network will see or know about them. As far as the router itself, e.g. your ISPs router, it can already gather MAC addresses if it wanted to, so IPv6 using the MAC to generate link-local addresses doesn't add or remove to that situation. CGNAT is not the Internet working well. CGNAT makes you have to have your ISPs permission and coordination to originate outgoing traffic--imagine if you had to ask the power company for permission to operate each electrical device in your house.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

What I don't understand is why governments seemingly ignore this problem ?? Look at what they did with broadcast digital TV : it was announced that it would be illegal in a couple of years to sell hardware not compatible with the new standard, then a couple of years later on illegal to sell hardware compatible with the old standard...

bert64 4y ago
Some are... China, India, Israel all mandate IPv6 support from ISPs in their territory and the equipment they provide to users, as do some others. The US has mandated IPv6 support for federal contracts since 2009, although they don't get involved outside of those directly providing services to the government itself. They now have plans to go IPv6-only, and eliminate the use of legacy IP within the federal government. Allocation of legacy address space was always based on first come first served, so developed countries got the lions share of address space and left developing countries with scraps. This creates a severe inequality, and holds developing countries back. This is also why India and China are leading, as they have a huge disparity between their population and the number of legacy addresses available.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Yeah, though I've heard that Africa is being left out, once again ? (Though the sooner we ban IPv4, the sooner they will stop using it too...)