6 ms·
> 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 l
by 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.