4 ms·
I really really don't get ISPs' difficulties in deploying IPv6. The only conclusion I can reach that actually makes sense is that they don't have the in-house t
by systems_glitch 3y ago
I really really don't get ISPs' difficulties in deploying IPv6. The only conclusion I can reach that actually makes sense is that they don't have the in-house talent to deploy it and refuse to hire someone who does. I guess there's just not enough pain in staying IPv4-only or halfway implementing IPv6 to make them get up and do something about it?
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoIPv6 doesn't actually solve any problem people wanted to solve. IPv4 (as used in practice) has 48 bits of addressing, we don't need more. What we do need is a standard way to do address translation for routing decisions, to replace the 1001 half-baked solutions for VPN and overlay networks that are used today. (Linux has something like five or six "standard" ways to tunnel IP over IP. WTF?)
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> IPv4 (as used in practice) has 48 bits of addressing, we don't need more. Do you mean an entire address space of NATs?
- fanf2 3y agoIPv4 has 24 bits for allocating network prefixes. All of these prefixes have been allocated, and they change hands for as much as $15,000 each. IPv6 has 48 bits for allocating network prefixes.
- systems_glitch 3y agoThat's assuming end-to-end connectivity is, for some reason, no longer desirable. There's a bunch of stuff where all the NAT-associated problems would just go away when switching to IPv6, like SIP.
- oezi 3y agoEven worse IPv6 solves the NAT traversal problem in a way how people don't want it to be solved. People wanted a DynDNS kind of solution.