4 ms·

Requiring web services and ISPs to retain detailed logs in perpetuity until IPv6 is universal would be one way to expedite the transition. But personally I don

Requiring web services and ISPs to retain detailed logs in perpetuity until IPv6 is universal would be one way to expedite the transition. But personally I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen. There's simply too little monetary incentive for supporting it. For outbound connections NAT/CGNAT works fine. For inbound connections you can use SNI routing with a tunnel[0]. [0]: https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling

easterncalculus 2y ago
> But personally I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen. If you own a mobile phone you use it every day. IPv6 has already happened. > There's simply too little monetary incentive for supporting it. IPv6 allocations are orders of magnitude cheaper and wider than v4 allocations, which are already exhausted. > For outbound connections NAT/CGNAT works fine. For inbound connections you can use SNI routing with a tunnel[0]. All of these add latency, IPv6 reduces latency (particularly the more widely it is deployed).
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  > IPv6 allocations are orders of magnitude cheaper and wider than v4 allocations, which are already exhausted. Which is of no consequence to the incumbents who have enough existing stock to last them forever (with tricks like CGNAT/etc). The cost of IPv4s mostly impacts smaller players and/or new entrants, which works in favor of the incumbent ISPs.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Which is of no consequence to the incumbents who have enough existing stock to last them forever (with tricks like CGNAT/etc). And yet, Comcast was one of the first nationwide ISPs to enable residential IPv6 service. Comcast is a Very Large ISP. They also happen to have switched ages ago to an all-IPv6 internal network because they ran out of non-routable IPv4 addresses many times over. I suspect (but do not know) that Comcast's experience with how much easier switching over made operations for them to have been a significant factor in providing IPv6 service to residential (and eventually business) users.
Gigachad 2y ago
It's still growing fairly steadily, but I do feel like the need for it has been diminished. P2P software doesn't really exist for the mainstream anymore. Directly connecting between two end user computers without a server doesn't really happen much like it used to. CGNAT still causes issues for long lived connections though. Things like SSH will get cut off.
simoncion 2y ago
> But personally I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen. Weird. I've had "native" IPv6 service continuously since... 2004? 2006? and IPv6 via a 6to4 tunnel that terminated in Hurricane Electric's network since two years before that. Bonus: I discovered recently that the Zoom teleconferencing software works just fine if you have only IPv6 connectivity. Is there stuff that's IPv4-only? Sure. But IPv4 doesn't need to be shut down for IPv6 to have happened (and have been happening for a long time now).
lostmsu 2y ago
It would happen much quicker if governments mandated IPv6 for all new connections.

easterncalculus 2y ago

> But personally I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen. If you own a mobile phone you use it every day. IPv6 has already happened. > There's simply too little monetary incentive for supporting it. IPv6 allocations are orders of magnitude cheaper and wider than v4 allocations, which are already exhausted. > For outbound connections NAT/CGNAT works fine. For inbound connections you can use SNI routing with a tunnel[0]. All of these add latency, IPv6 reduces latency (particularly the more widely it is deployed).

Nextgrid 2y ago
> IPv6 allocations are orders of magnitude cheaper and wider than v4 allocations, which are already exhausted. Which is of no consequence to the incumbents who have enough existing stock to last them forever (with tricks like CGNAT/etc). The cost of IPv4s mostly impacts smaller players and/or new entrants, which works in favor of the incumbent ISPs.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Which is of no consequence to the incumbents who have enough existing stock to last them forever (with tricks like CGNAT/etc). And yet, Comcast was one of the first nationwide ISPs to enable residential IPv6 service. Comcast is a Very Large ISP. They also happen to have switched ages ago to an all-IPv6 internal network because they ran out of non-routable IPv4 addresses many times over. I suspect (but do not know) that Comcast's experience with how much easier switching over made operations for them to have been a significant factor in providing IPv6 service to residential (and eventually business) users.

Gigachad 2y ago

It's still growing fairly steadily, but I do feel like the need for it has been diminished. P2P software doesn't really exist for the mainstream anymore. Directly connecting between two end user computers without a server doesn't really happen much like it used to. CGNAT still causes issues for long lived connections though. Things like SSH will get cut off.

simoncion 2y ago

> But personally I don't think IPv6 is ever going to happen. Weird. I've had "native" IPv6 service continuously since... 2004? 2006? and IPv6 via a 6to4 tunnel that terminated in Hurricane Electric's network since two years before that. Bonus: I discovered recently that the Zoom teleconferencing software works just fine if you have only IPv6 connectivity. Is there stuff that's IPv4-only? Sure. But IPv4 doesn't need to be shut down for IPv6 to have happened (and have been happening for a long time now).

lostmsu 2y ago

It would happen much quicker if governments mandated IPv6 for all new connections.