4 ms·
You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the
by neilalexander 3y ago
You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do.
I also don't think IPv6 is a "failed technology" at all. If you've used almost any zeroconf service on an Apple product recently (AirPlay, AirDrop, AirPrint, HomeKit, so on) then you've been almost certainly using link-local IPv6. If you've used Spotify Connect or Sonos, there's a very good chance that's been over link-local IPv6. If you have any Thread or Matter smart home appliances, they generally communicate using IPv6 too. Most devices connect to Chromecasts over link-local IPv6. You've quite likely been connected to IPv6-capable Wi-Fi networks before and you probably never noticed. IPv6 is actually pervasive in all sorts of places.
- jiggawatts 3y agoMost phone companies now provide IPv6 natively over their 4G/5G service, and IPv4 goes through carrier-grade NAT.
- hyperionplays 3y agoPretty sure all xbox services use v6 where possible as well.
- ectospheno 3y agoI am dual stack at home. While my xbox will happily display its ipv6 address my traffic logs still show it heavily preferring ipv4 when actually doing anything.
- pantalaimon 3y agoThis is also the reality for many DSL connections these days.
- Faaak 3y agoMy ISP offers a plan without IPv4 at a lower price. v4 websites only are served through their NAT64/DNS64 infrastructure and it works really well except for some dumb applications that hardcode the IPv4 instead of using domain names (yeah, and also the ones that rewrite the entire stack in C and only support AF_INET...)
- miyuru 3y agoIf possible, can you share the ISPs name?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]