4 ms·
there is no clear benefit to most users tho
by zanfr 3y ago
there is no clear benefit to most users tho
- mjhay 3y agoIn the US, usually not - but the US is comparatively spoiled for IPv4 blocks. It's pretty common in a lot of places for ISP customers to share public-facing IPs. This causes all sorts of issues with people being unfairly spam blacklisted, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
- nfriedly 3y agoEven my (US) ISP defaults everyone to CGNAT.
- redserk 3y agoHouseholds with multiple Nintendo Switch and I think the PS5 consoles (I may be mixing this up with Xbox) would significantly benefit. Some games assume there’s only one console per public IP, and expects ports NAT forwarded as such. Giving each end-user an IPv6 prefix completely solves that mess.
- tsimionescu 3y agoUp until the games start limiting things to a single IPv6 prefix, of course.
- Qwertious 3y agoIt makes setting up a home server much easier, because you can get infinite free static IPs. That doesn't contradict that "most users" don't benefit, though.
- massysett 3y agoHow is it any more static than v4? Network providers can still provide dynamic addresses with v6.
- Qwertious 3y agoThe cost of an IPv6 address is effectively $0. The cost of a static IPv4 address is ~$90 last I checked. And while network providers can provide dynamic IP addresses, it's pretty trivial for them to provide static addresses and just never bother changing them - it's not like there's a shortage of IPv6 addresses. So from the perspective of a home internet user, acquiring a static IPv4 address is harder and more-expensive-than-$0.
- bluGill 3y agoThere is benefit to ISPs, and has many other ISPs and cell companies have shown the world is ready and most people won't even notice if you give them IPv6 - their computers will notice and start using it.