3 ms·

> telecoms that deal with consumers have at best 0 (zero) incentive to deploy ipv6 unless there's regulatory pressure. Not entirely true. 10/8 is only so big,

> telecoms that deal with consumers have at best 0 (zero) incentive to deploy ipv6 unless there's regulatory pressure. Not entirely true. 10/8 is only so big, so the management of addresses very much has a nonzero opex cost. And on top of that there's capex on "carrier grade NAT". For the biggest providers 10/8 is not even big enough for their production environment. And then they acquire some some company that (obviously) also uses 10/8. No, there's definitely incentive there. Just… not enough.

Hikikomori 2y ago
240/4 is usually used when 10/8 isn't enough.
- knorker 2y ago
  Do you have data on that? I've heard rumors, but never seen it actually done. It was never a viable option for the Internet (million or billions of devices would never support it, and anyway it'd only buy us like 3 months), but in theory it should work better in the (more, but not entirely) controlled environment of a large prod environment. I know of several massive setups that when running out of 10/8 evaluated 240/4 but deemed it less feasible, riskier, and definitely more work, than to "just" move to IPv6. Sorry, can't namedrop them, since I don't want to doxx myself. I've never seen 240/4 actually chosen.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    We use them in AWS as IPv6 hasn't been feasible, though its become better in the last 1-2 years. AWS uses it internally, likely other big providers probably also do. If you can get away with IPv6 only, ie not constrained by provider/device, its likely worth going that direction instead. Works fine in Linux, doesn't really work on Windows and some BSDs. https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/class-e-addresses-in-the-real-world https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/class-e-addresses-in-the-rea...
- tremon 2y ago
  240/4 is multicast range, and mobile devices WILL wreak havoc in that range (though it's not impossible to simply drop all such traffic at ingress). I usually see service providers using 172.16/12 instead.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    224/4 is multicast. AWS uses it, we use it in AWS, as do others. Works fine with Linux, Windows not so much, afaik android and osx are fine with it.

Hikikomori 2y ago

240/4 is usually used when 10/8 isn't enough.

knorker 2y ago
Do you have data on that? I've heard rumors, but never seen it actually done. It was never a viable option for the Internet (million or billions of devices would never support it, and anyway it'd only buy us like 3 months), but in theory it should work better in the (more, but not entirely) controlled environment of a large prod environment. I know of several massive setups that when running out of 10/8 evaluated 240/4 but deemed it less feasible, riskier, and definitely more work, than to "just" move to IPv6. Sorry, can't namedrop them, since I don't want to doxx myself. I've never seen 240/4 actually chosen.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  We use them in AWS as IPv6 hasn't been feasible, though its become better in the last 1-2 years. AWS uses it internally, likely other big providers probably also do. If you can get away with IPv6 only, ie not constrained by provider/device, its likely worth going that direction instead. Works fine in Linux, doesn't really work on Windows and some BSDs. https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/class-e-addresses-in-the-real-world https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/class-e-addresses-in-the-rea...
tremon 2y ago
240/4 is multicast range, and mobile devices WILL wreak havoc in that range (though it's not impossible to simply drop all such traffic at ingress). I usually see service providers using 172.16/12 instead.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  224/4 is multicast. AWS uses it, we use it in AWS, as do others. Works fine with Linux, Windows not so much, afaik android and osx are fine with it.