4 ms·
I don't think you could design it in such a way that it's easier to migrate to. It's a fundamental change at the IP protocol layer, there wasn't scope in that
by chippiewill 3y ago
I don't think you could design it in such a way that it's easier to migrate to.
It's a fundamental change at the IP protocol layer, there wasn't scope in that layer for backwards compatibility.
There's loads of transition mechanisms that were introduced, but it's not as tractable of a problem. Assumptions around IPv4 have been baked in all over the place.
Also there was more _reason_ to move to HTTPS. Virtually everything had already supported HTTPS for closing in on two decades at the point the mass rollout with LE happened. You could switch to HTTPS-only for your site without breaking it for your users because they already needed it for online banking etc.
You can't just switch to exclusive IPv6 because half your users don't even have an IPv6 connection. And virtually everyone with IPv6 has an IPv4 connection anyway so the benefit in dual stacking is nil. Unlike supporting HTTPS where at least those that supported it got the benefit.
- kaliszad 3y agoActually, dual-stacking a website has some benefits. In some countries the CGNAT boxes tend to be oversubscribed and introduce latency. Apple has observed that too and presented some numbers to developers. Having two protocols can introduce redundancy for those that support both. If there is some routing issue e.g. because of some cable cut most clients will automatically use the faster protocol. If you run some infrastructure, you have to dual stack only at the gateway to other networks. You can run IPv6-only or IPv4-only inside and reverse-proxy or tunnel the traffic. Running IPv6 only can save you some money in the cloud today, it is not much but for small things the charge can be in double digit percent.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]