2 ms·

I think what would help is treating IPv6 as the new default. IPv6 is now good enough that can use it for IPv6-only network with NAT64/DNS64 at the edges for IPv

I think what would help is treating IPv6 as the new default. IPv6 is now good enough that can use it for IPv6-only network with NAT64/DNS64 at the edges for IPv4. Businesses are the big holdouts in the US. They have existing complicated networks and address allocations, and don't see the need for an upgrade.

lmm 3y ago
> I think what would help is treating IPv6 as the new default. IPv6 is now good enough that can use it for IPv6-only network with NAT64/DNS64 at the edges for IPv4. That's already happening on new networks that need a lot of addresses (e.g. most big mobile carriers do this). IPv6 is pretty heavily used, but like most infrastructure you don't notice it until it breaks. > Businesses are the big holdouts in the US. They have existing complicated networks and address allocations, and don't see the need for an upgrade. "Businesses" is too broad a category. But fundamentally anyone who has plenty of addresses and isn't feeling the squeeze has no real incentive to upgrade, so why would they.