5 ms·

I hope we see a not-so-subtle jump in usage on google ipv6 tracker. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/sta

I hope we see a not-so-subtle jump in usage on google ipv6 tracker. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Anecdote, my ISP gives us IPv6 but not my employer. We use the IT equipment till the last breadth. I have seen, permanent table-fan running towards Floor's network hub. I guess that one is NOT IPv6 ready. :D

wongarsu 3y ago
I doubt it. Realistically the AWS charge mostly causes companies to stop giving IPv4 addresses to servers that never directly talk to customers. As a knock-on effect this will cause tooling to become more IPv6 aware, and put pressure on SaaS in infrastructure monitoring and dev tooling to be reachable via IPv6 (for example this might cause github to finally fix their IPv6 game because of higher customer demand). Maybe companies use the same opportunity to make sure their services also work via IPv6. But they won't stop offering their services on IPv4, and AWS changes don't put meaningful pressure on ISPs to roll out IPv6. If anything it will reduce the pressure on the price of IPv4 addresses, making it more viable for ISPs to hold out.
- zinekeller 3y ago
  > will cause tooling to become more IPv6 aware I doubt it, especially that there is an option of using private/CGNAT ranges instead of adopting a whole new protocol. Everyone who cares about IPv6 have already done their part, and people who don't care about it will likely use the lower-friction option, and between private IPv4 networks and IPv6 I bet that a lot of people will see private IPv4 as a lower-friction option.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    However the lowest friction option is to use private IPv4 between your servers, but give every server a public IPv6 it can use for outgoing calls: updating the OS, fetching github repositories, collecting logs on your favorite SaaS, etc. Of course you can do all this via IPv4 by setting up proxies or gateways, but that's more work and more moving pieces than checking the checkbox that you want a public IPv6 and having it just work ... provided everyone you want to talk to talks IPv6.
zamadatix 3y ago
The tracker is for client connections to Google. To impact that graph AWS customers would have to, en masse, decide the $1/m charge is worth losing half their current users over and then the users and ISPs would have to scramble for IPv6. The more likely story is places using AWS pay 1$/m for a public address and use private/IPv6 internally. I.e. an incremental step, not a revolution in the chart.
- the8472 3y ago
  > losing half their current users IPv6 adoption is not uniformly distributed. Some usersbases might have higher penetration. But yeah, I doubt there are many where it's high enough to be worth it.

wongarsu 3y ago

I doubt it. Realistically the AWS charge mostly causes companies to stop giving IPv4 addresses to servers that never directly talk to customers. As a knock-on effect this will cause tooling to become more IPv6 aware, and put pressure on SaaS in infrastructure monitoring and dev tooling to be reachable via IPv6 (for example this might cause github to finally fix their IPv6 game because of higher customer demand). Maybe companies use the same opportunity to make sure their services also work via IPv6. But they won't stop offering their services on IPv4, and AWS changes don't put meaningful pressure on ISPs to roll out IPv6. If anything it will reduce the pressure on the price of IPv4 addresses, making it more viable for ISPs to hold out.

zinekeller 3y ago
> will cause tooling to become more IPv6 aware I doubt it, especially that there is an option of using private/CGNAT ranges instead of adopting a whole new protocol. Everyone who cares about IPv6 have already done their part, and people who don't care about it will likely use the lower-friction option, and between private IPv4 networks and IPv6 I bet that a lot of people will see private IPv4 as a lower-friction option.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  However the lowest friction option is to use private IPv4 between your servers, but give every server a public IPv6 it can use for outgoing calls: updating the OS, fetching github repositories, collecting logs on your favorite SaaS, etc. Of course you can do all this via IPv4 by setting up proxies or gateways, but that's more work and more moving pieces than checking the checkbox that you want a public IPv6 and having it just work ... provided everyone you want to talk to talks IPv6.

zamadatix 3y ago

The tracker is for client connections to Google. To impact that graph AWS customers would have to, en masse, decide the $1/m charge is worth losing half their current users over and then the users and ISPs would have to scramble for IPv6. The more likely story is places using AWS pay 1$/m for a public address and use private/IPv6 internally. I.e. an incremental step, not a revolution in the chart.

the8472 3y ago
> losing half their current users IPv6 adoption is not uniformly distributed. Some usersbases might have higher penetration. But yeah, I doubt there are many where it's high enough to be worth it.