21 ms·
Yeah, we need more incentive. Ipv6 is harder to implement yes, it is true, there is no point in denying this and arguing it solves tons of problem (it does). Mo
by kuon 3y ago
Yeah, we need more incentive. Ipv6 is harder to implement yes, it is true, there is no point in denying this and arguing it solves tons of problem (it does). Most companies have ipv4 experience and it's just simpler. There must be some political pressure to make it move. But "hopefully" the economical pressure is starting to build up, a lot of providers are cheaper in ipv6 only configuration.
Still, for a company like discord, not even using host names to allow DNS64 is really sad.
- photonbeam 3y agoPlenty of big sites have no AAAA record even
- pavel_odintsov 3y agoIt can be easily sorted out with DNS64 and NAT64: https://pavel.network/building-gateway-to-access-legacy-ipv4-internet-from-ipv6-only-work-laptop/ https://pavel.network/building-gateway-to-access-legacy-ipv4...
- photonbeam 3y agoI meant it more as damning the current level of commitment from big corps who could probably afford to dual stack
- hot_gril 3y agoIf ipv4 is just simpler and people prefer it like you say, that's a sign that v6 isn't a good option for replacement.
- Macha 3y agoSome of this is unavoidable while fixing the scaling problems of IPv4. Longer addresses are never going to be preferable for users over shorter addresses, but addresses are necessarily going to be longer than IPv4 if it's going to support more devices.
- hot_gril 3y agoThe existing users that already have short addresses should be able to keep them (ignoring the trailing 0s), and even the newer longer ones don't need to be 128 bits.
- Macha 3y ago::ffff:<IPv4 address> is a perfectly valid V6 address. The problem is not the user facing representation but all the software and hardware implementations, including in middleboxes in between client and server. 128 is no different to 33 bits, or 32 bits plus extension header in that regard.
- hot_gril 3y agoIt's valid but not routable in practice. The Internet collectively didn't choose to map existing IPv4 addresses into v6 or keep the routing unified, that's the problem. It should've been that 1.1.1.1 on v4 now owns 1.1.1.1/32 on v6, so going all-v6 doesn't mean cutting yourself off from v4 hosts. Once v6 was well-adopted, they could start using the longer addresses. Instead, we got two totally separate networks.
- Macha 3y agoThis is an "IPv6" network that does not allow for more users. The IPv4 network space is already depleted. This is why mobile ISPs, Indian ISPs etc. are all dual stack with CGNAT for IPv4. Perhaps you meant to suggest that they should own 1.1.1.1::/64 or 1.1.1.1/128 (or 1:1:1:1::/64)? Even if it's the latter case, both the actual ::ffff:1.2.3.4 (or it's predecessor ::1.2.3.4) have the problem that some middle box receives a packet for 1.1.1.1::abcd:1234, doesn't understand the header the abcd:1234 portion is encoded in, throws it away, and the router at 1.1.1.1 receives a packet which is destined for some unknown device behind the router with no info for how to get the packet to that device.
- hot_gril 3y ago
- ianburrell 3y agoOne thing that might help is government regulation that any ISP using CGNAT must offer IPv6. Customers should get public IP address, single IPv4 or /64 IPv6. Another would be that government customers need to have IPv6-enabled sites. This could get a lot of companies to add IPv6 hosting.
- Macha 3y ago> One thing that might help is government regulation that any ISP using CGNAT must offer IPv6. Customers should get public IP address, single IPv4 or /64 IPv6. My understanding is they largely do. It's the ISPs that have enough IPv4 addresses that don't feel a need to upgrade, and the website operators who $3/server/month for an IPv4 address is a rounding error.