4 ms·
If every ISP had an IPV6 to the house/mobile, we wouldn't be having this debate. The argument is for the ISPs who still don't have it.
by zapdrive 3y ago
If every ISP had an IPV6 to the house/mobile, we wouldn't be having this debate. The argument is for the ISPs who still don't have it.
- eppp 3y agoISPs have ipv4 because our customers want to get to sites that are ipv4 only. We can't just tell them "oops we dont support ipv4 sites anymore" The fix the content side and the isps will migrate.
- viraptor 3y agoGetting an ipv6 address doesn't mean you lose your ipv4. You can use both at the same time. (And even if you don't, you can still proxy the traffic to ipv4 networks - mobile networks do it)
- eppp 3y agoI know that. But it doesn't solve the problem of people needing to continue buying ipv4 to serve new customers.
- viraptor 3y agoIt sure does from some threshold. Given enough users on v6, the question becomes "do we want to spend $X to reach Y% more people". For most companies there's high enough X and low enough Y where they will not bother. This already happens with browsers: sure, there's that one guy still visiting from windows xp - but we don't care he gets a completely broken website.
- eppp 3y agoIt is still cheaper on a 10y timeframe to buy ipv4 than it is to pay for a NAT box for ipv4 and to deploy ipv6 and run both.
- viraptor 3y agoDepends on a scale. How many addresses? And will you even get them anymore? Not to far away it will become problematic to even get approved for residential usage, so the choice will be Nat for ipv4 or a 6->4 gateway.
- eppp 3y agoI just got approved to buy another /20 at $40 each. I am sure Amazon is buying them and putting them on AWS stuff as well.