6 ms·
Are we past peak IPv4?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- graphe 3y agoI've always disable IPv6 on my router because I heard it wasn't secure since it was worthless to enable, and was another ingress into security. What benefits are there if any of using it?
- hackmiester 3y agoI mean, I guess if all you care about is getting from point A to point B, a bullet train has no benefit over a steam locomotive.
- graphe 3y agoThere was zero speed difference or any changes I noticed last I configured my router, which is why it's still disabled. I haven't seen a single good use for enabling it.
- fmajid 3y agoNot having to use all sorts of NAT traversal hacks or use relay servers means P2P communications like video calls will be faster, but only if both sides are on IPv6, so yes, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg. Most mobile phones are dual-stack now, and apps like browsers do “happy eyeballs” where they attempt both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously and pick the best.
- hot_gril 3y agoBesides both sides being ipv6, the chat app has to intentionally support some p2p mode, and both sides have to be NAT-free and have firewalls allowing incoming connections.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alphabettsy 3y agoWhat did you find when you looked into it?
- hot_gril 3y agoThe only practical reason you'd want to use ipv6 at home is if you want to expose multiple devices on your LAN to incoming TCP/UDP connections from the Internet without doing port mapping, since your ISP likely gives you a whole ipv6 block instead of just one address like with v4.
- neilalexander 3y agoThe real practical reason, everything else aside, is that you’ll need IPv6 connectivity to reach IPv6 services as the world continues to adopt and transition over to IPv6.
- hot_gril 3y agoSo far I haven't encountered any ipv6-only services. It may happen some day, then again there might be some bridge to v4 anyway.
- gargalatas 3y agoCGNAT is also a thing lately..
- hot_gril 3y agoRight, some home ISPs that don't give a public v4 might give you a public v6 without a firewall. Cellular ISPs will probably have CGNAT even on ipv6, for example my AT&T is like that.
- Rapzid 3y agoEh, no plans to move to v6 as someone who works on SaaS. 3.60/month is cheap for the few public IPs most need. In my ISP/cloud provider days sure I spent a lot of time implementing v6. But it's just nowhere near worth the cost to mess with particularly when you still want/need public v4 along side. Also, I don't understand how v6 could be responsible for these post peak prices. Most everyone still has the v4 addresses as well and no way v6 only cowboys are outpacing general growth.
- Plasmoid 3y agoI've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks. My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work. If we'd both been running IPv6 there wouldn't have been any IP space collision. We could just connect them together and be done with it.
- Rapzid 3y agoCouldn't you just expose those networks via non-overlapping blocks? Surely the entire private space wasn't spoken for.
- Plasmoid 3y agoWe'd have to do private bi-directional NAT44. NAT is expensive to run and is one of those things that always breaks. It could work but it basically just makes permanent tech debt that will frustrate maintenance forever. It also only really works when it's a 1:1 scale, as you add more networks the configuration grows with N^2.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago> expose those networks via non-overlapping blocks For this to work you need to expose the services to those non-overlapping blocks, ie write DNS views and associated shenanigans. At this point you are half-way to IPv6, so why bother with implementing NAT44 at all?
- profmonocle 3y ago> IPv6 users now account for 45 per cent of Google visitors. It's hard to estimate how increasing percentage of users with IPv6 access is impacting the demand for public IPv4 addresses. My instinct is "not by a lot", but it's interesting to think about. Currently IPv6 does not allow you to simply do away with public IPv4 adderesses. On the ISP side that would mean providing a product that couldn't access a huge chunk of the web. On the hosting side that would mean providing a service that isn't available to a huge chunk of users. It's not viable. But increasing IPv6 deployment could possibly reduce IPv4 demand. If you're an ISP and half of your customers' traffic is over IPv6, maybe you could densify your carrier-grade NAT setup, putting more users behind the same number of public IPs. If you're a large content provider and half of your users are over IPv6, maybe only half of your load balancers need public IPv4 addresses. The question is - is any ISP or provider actually doing those things in response to increased IPv6 traffic?
- idatum 3y agoIPv6 does allow you to have a client on any ISP to not rely on IPv4: NAT64/DNS64 is one example for a home network (my experience). There are major mobile carriers that will also disagree, and they provide an IPv6-only technical solution. > It's hard to estimate how increasing percentage of users with IPv6 access is impacting the demand for public IPv4 addresses. I'm more interested in this excellent point you make, about the economics. I don't think this has been thought through as well as the technology. And can we please find additional sources other than GOOG for IPv6 adoption?
- treffer 3y agoThese are implicit. The IPv4 space is hard money. Demand is high. So ISPs make some money having IPv4 space now. I've definitely seen this. That's how IPv4 connectivity became an enterprise/business line feature on some ISPs. A neglected detail about CGNAT is that it has lower the quality of IPv4 connectivity. Higher latency + more connectivity issues. So if you offer a service then you should offer it on ipv6 due to that. That's a really slow transition though. So I wouldn't expect this to kill off IPv4 any time soon (say 10y), but longterm it's been the trajectory already.
- ghusto 3y ago
- girvo 3y agoMy issue with IPv6 is online gaming doesn’t seem to support it at all. Valorant and similar online competitive games are IPv4 only; despite IPv6 having considering upsides for real time games. I think you could get real uptake from gamers if it was supported (due to possible latency benefits, even if they’re only small)
- Plasmoid 3y agoGaming was late to IP networks too. I remember so many games would only support IPX networking even after the internet had taken off. Kali was a very popular IPX emulator for IP networks for years.
- fulafel 3y agoXbox has been doing IPv6 for a long time I think. They've even advertised it: https://www.extremetech.com/internet/168394-xbox-one-will-be-best-experienced-with-ipv6-how-do-you-get-ipv6-at-home-though https://www.extremetech.com/internet/168394-xbox-one-will-be...
- girvo 3y agoYeah they’re the only one sadly. Riot doesn’t, Sony doesn’t, among others. I’m hopeful they do eventually follow suit
- jacooper 3y agoWell it's not an issue with IPv6 specifically, rather with companies not deploying it.
- ftth_finland 3y agoBetteridge's law strikes again.