6 ms·

If you are deploying a greenfield project in 2025 and you don’t bother setting up IPv6, you are failing. Also all internal virtual networks should by this point

If you are deploying a greenfield project in 2025 and you don’t bother setting up IPv6, you are failing. Also all internal virtual networks should by this point be IPv6 only or at least dual stack. The fact that we got unit testing to be the norm before IPv6 is negligent.

rwmj 1y ago
The comment above was being downvoted quite a lot, and I'd quite like to know why. It seems reasonable to ensure that IPv6 works as a basic requirement for new projects (at least, ones which can be connected to a network).
- slackfan 1y ago
  The bell curve of engineering skill dictates that most don't want any new ideas that are outside their bubble.
  - vachina 1y ago
    If something takes 10x the effort for 0x the return most will not do it.
    - dingnuts 1y ago
      if the Internet actually managed to move to v6 the end of NAT and CGNAT would be a huge win. Also, look at the price of every v4 address you have to rent, and compare it to v6 and tell me there's no return. I've practically built an entire career out of finding ways for customers to use fewer v4 addresses and the demand is there because v4 addresses are expensive as shit due to their scarcity.
    - rwmj 1y ago
      I agree there is definitely more work required to get something working with IPv6 (though not 10x). However to say that doing this is "0 x the return". You're ignoring a solid third to half of the broad internet, which is not nothing. Plus if you're trying to sell to me then I'm definitely not going to adopt your product if you've made no effort on IPv6.
    - IgorPartola 1y ago
      It takes as much or less effort than IPv4. And sorry if you set up networks and don’t know how to do that with IPv6, you shouldn’t be doing what you are doing. If it takes you 10x as much effort to set up something that is actively simpler, you need an education or a career change.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  There are many new projects that are ipv4-only, and it doesn't mean they failed.
  - IgorPartola 1y ago
    If you created a token ring network for your K8s cluster and it worked fine I wouldn’t say you failed. But I would say you are not doing the right things. This is the same. IPv4 is deprecated. Stop using it for things like your AWS VPC. If it doesn’t work aggressively file bug reports.
    - morshu9001 1y ago
      Or, I can focus on getting the project done. If IPv6 is a requirement then I'll do it, no complaints. Chasing nice-to-haves is how the project explodes in complexity. Which btw, is what ipv6 did. They just needed to enlarge the address space, instead it became a whole redesign that was not only harder to adopt but also inherently more complicated than v4 (aside from removing fragmenting). So I wouldn't even say it's the right thing, it's just what someone else wants. Maybe a compromise will be reached in v7, like v6 packet format that otherwise acts like v4 and carries over the old /32s.
      - IgorPartola 1y ago
        Oh my god are we back to trying to cram 8 bytes of data into a 4 byte field? You’d think people on a site called Hacker News would understand basic arithmetic.
        morshu9001 1y ago
        "ipv6 packet format" means 16 byte addr. Don't talk down to people.
        IgorPartola 1y ago
        You are right but 8 bytes into 4 bytes sounded more on illustrative in my head. And while I try to make a point to be kind to people who do not know things, if you choose to express a clearly nonsensical opinion in such strong terms, on a forum that has discussed to death how you cannot cram more addresses into an IPv4 header, and something you can check for yourself so easily, yeah sorry you deserve a terse response of that’s not how bytes work. You did not bother to do 60 seconds of education before spouting this tired nonsense.
theideaofcoffee 1y ago
Agree 100%. There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". It makes most things a lot easier than its v4 counterparts. I'd go so far as to say not deploying v6 is actively negligent.
- michaelcampbell 1y ago
  > There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". This is just absurd on its face. There are very real human, political, engineering, and financial reasons to not want to upgrade things that are IPV4 only. _SHOULD_ one do this, absolutely, but there's a lot more to it than people pulling the "hard" card. There's a bevy of reasons it IS hard, and very few of them are just obstinate luddites.
  - theideaofcoffee 1y ago
    When did the post that I was responding to say anything about upgrades? The comment was about greenfield projects. I reiterate my point: if in a -greenfield- project you're not building IPv6 native, you're negligent. Get up on your reading comprehension. If there's no IPv6 support, be an engineer and -make- some: write the software that needs the support, use different vendors that don't break it just because they are actively lazy and can't be bothered to implement RFCs that are, at this point, decades old. IPv4 needs to go away yesterday.
    - michaelcampbell 1y ago
      > Get up on your reading comprehension. The ad hominem, nice.
- no-stegosaur 1y ago
  Just imagine the world was used to subnets and NAT would be the new thing to learn. Everyone would go "NAT breaks all the time" and "portforwarding is weird" and whatnot. IPv6 is not harder, people just confuse "harder" with "not being used to".
ktosobcy 1y ago
Well, IPv6 would be nice but my experience so far was that having it enabled on my machines/local network usually resulted in something not working :/
- ancarda 1y ago
  When was the last time you tried? I used to run into issues too but for a few years now it's basically "just worked".
  - ktosobcy 1y ago
    about 1 year ago (after mooving with new ISP…)
liveoneggs 1y ago
I'll call you the next time HE decides to stop routing ipv6 from europe to new york or when your corporate vpn is ipv4 only but your resolver is preferring AAAA records
- JeanMarcS 1y ago
  "IPv6 only or at least dual stack"
  - liveoneggs 1y ago
    "the next time HE decides to stop routing ipv6 from europe to new york"
- theideaofcoffee 1y ago
  Then I will dead pan tell you to engage a second provider. I will also tell you to have your corporate IT people ring me so we can do some remedial IPv6 training.
  - patrakov 1y ago
    Dear Sir, The absence of IPv6 within our organizational network is a deliberate and carefully considered decision, implemented in accordance with the requirements of our current cyber insurance provider. Enabling IPv6 would invalidate our existing insurance coverage, which in turn would result in the loss of a critical client whose continued partnership depends on our maintaining this specific insurer. This dependency arises from regulatory obligations that compel our client to source services exclusively from suppliers holding cyber insurance from accredited providers. We recognize the technical benefits of IPv6, but compliance and risk management considerations must take precedence under these circumstances.
    - theideaofcoffee 1y ago
      Absolutely wild. Sounds like there were organizational problems where the correct technically-minded people weren't invited into the vendor eval process for that "insurance" provider, nor were they given the ability to push back on insane requirements from a customer. This is a symptom of hiring the cheapest, least sophisticated box-ticking compliance and insurance providers. How do I know? Because I've worked with more than I want to count. And that's all that they know how to do. Sure, they'll give you the certification, or the insurance, but it will be non-stop pain starting the day you sign the contract with them. A real, competent provider/insurer would take the problem on head-on and be the adviser that you are hiring them to be. They would advise you about the real, actual risks and positives. Then you would have air-cover to go tell the customer during the procurement stage to go pound sand. Insane that you would actually allow a prospective customer to dictate how you do things internally. That also smacks of the customer not having the technical sophistication to even know about the things they are demanding, they just read about the random lines they can throw in a contract because others did. This industry is fucked and deserves every ounce of comeuppance coming its way.
AtlasBarfed 1y ago
It's true that at this point future proofing demands it. Is anyone happy about it in ipv4 land? No. I just think it is ironic that the biggest use of ipv6 is cgnat, and it's what they crow about in ipv6 uptake, despite the fact ipv6 is religiously opposed to NATs. Regular NATs you have control over with poking holes. Cgnat you are restricted to tail scale stuff.
- Symbiote 1y ago
  I think you misunderstand. CGNAT is IPv4. IPv6 is sometimes (often?) provided alongside, because of the limitations of a CGNAT IPv6 connection.
  - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
    Your cgnat isn't taking an ipv6 addressed phone and interfacing with the ipv4 internet? Or are you trying to say the ipv4 is what is natted? Because the ipv4 is where all the stuff the ipv6 phone wants.
    - toast0 1y ago
      > Because the ipv4 is where all the stuff the ipv6 phone wants. There's still some ipv4 only services, but most of the big ones are dual stack. Looks like right now tiktok is v4only, which is probably significant, but Google, Facebook, Netflix are dual stack. Amazon/EC2 have lots of v4 only bits and pieces, but at least www and cdn are dual stack. Github is also v4 only and that's important, but how many people are pulling from their phone?
      - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
        I ran Starlink for a while. CGNAT. No fun running servers. 5G internet? CGNAT. ISPs that support IPV6, they will probably still run NATs. So here's a question: if your ipv6 is behind CGNAT and calls an ipv6 on the other side of the CGNAT: is it still one-way, or un-NAT'ed? And you agree the non-oligarch internet is ipv4, along with a large part of the oligarch internet.
ta1243 1y ago
Why? IPv4 works. IPv6 often doesn't. I'd love to see a benefit in ipv6, I see no benefits at all, I can't run an ipv6 only network, so I have to run ipv4, and everything I need runs on ipv4, why do I need to double my workload to run ipv6 and ipv4. My ipv6 only ssid at home sits idle other than a test vm because when I reach a problem I just move onto my ipv4 only ssid and everything works.
- morshu9001 1y ago
  Making v6 a separate network from v4 was a mistake in hindsight. They needed to roll this out in steps, first one being you keep the same IP address and all except you're just using v6 instead of v4, with a NAT etc like before (which ofc you could turn off if you want). People only needed more addresses, not everything different.
  - ZWoz 1y ago
    You can't fit 128bit number in 32bit field. All suggestions I have seen are missing something or reinventing network address translation, poorly.
    - morshu9001 1y ago
      Expanding the address size did require a larger field but didn't require wiping out the existing addresses or anything else. We got the new packet header and near ubiquitous support for it, but that's not everything.
  - ta1243 1y ago
    I made a deliberate choice to see if ipv6 was ready. I don't need ipv6, I do need ipv4. ipv6 doesn't work, ipv4 does. The alternative (dual stack) is more work for no reason. If ipv6 ever works then great. I built a test ipv6 network for work but a lot of equipment simply didn't support it, and of that which did our suppliers said "well it might work but nobody actually uses it so we don't know" It's a solution to a problem which was solved in a more backwards compatible way decades ago. It would be lovely if it worked, but it still doesn't.
tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
For my home network, I really tried. But in the end, after several times running into weird issues where some pages were working and others weren't, which were reliably resolved by turning off IPv6, I decided to leave the setting in the "Internet works" position. I don't know what the issue was the last time, and I don't want to know. In particular, I don't want to have to know. When I open the tap, I expect clear, safe, drinking water, not having to debug why the pipe isn't working.
- IgorPartola 1y ago
  Have you done the tutorial on Tunnel Broker?
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
    No. Because again, I want water to come out of the tap, not spend hours playing plumber. My ISP provides native IPv6, when it works, and it worked until it didn't, and because I wanted to use the Internet rather than debug the Internet, I took the easy way out. IDGAF whether it was something I could have configured differently that only becomes relevant in some cases, a bug in my router, an issue with my ISPs network, or someone else's misconfiguration: There is a setting in my router, and with the toggle on the left, my Internet works reliably without me having to touch things, with the toggle on the right, it occasionally demands attention at inopportune moments.
    - IgorPartola 1y ago
      I mean in that case yes it makes sense. You are not setting up any networks that affect anyone but you and maybe your family. My comment was directed at people that are setting up infrastructure aimed at hosting systems that consumers intact with or systems that run internal applications, such as an AWS VPC that hosts a variety of services. Your ISP also would fall into that category.
- chirayuk 1y ago
  I had these same concerns for a while. Earlier this year, I turned on IPv6 and run a dual stack on my home network (my mac is browsing HN via IPv6.) Do you remember what sites didn't load for you?
Spooky23 1y ago
I can't see any advantages at all. I deployed it at home and in a few networks my company runs. We had nothing but stupid issues and zero benefit, and I was looking for them. Basic stuff like getting automatically applied dynamic hostnames from the ISP fighting with whatever things are called internally wastes alot of time. I think most devices were getting 4 different addresses for various purposes and the devs had no idea which one they should be using. I'm sure we were doing it wrong, or used the wrong gear, or whatever. But again, no discernable benefit to anyone involved. If we were located in a place with no IPv4 availability, probably a different story... but we don't. We turned it off except for a few networks that just provide client internet.
- IgorPartola 1y ago
  There are many advantages. I listed some in a reply to another comment. It is like carrying a Swiss Army knife in your pocket. Until you start it seems like you’d never need it. Once you do, you won’t live without it.
  - this_user 1y ago
    It's more like carrying an overly complex Swiss Army knife that somewhere has a knife function, but that knife function doesn't intuitively work like a regular knife and has all kinds of weird failure modes and edge cases, when all you want is to slice an apple.
    - IgorPartola 1y ago
      IPv6 is in most ways simpler than IPv4. There are a couple of gotchas but honestly all you really need to do to see this look at the IPv4 and IPv6 packet header structures to see that they difference is minimal and IPv6 has less room for complexity. You lose NAT (it is possible but nobody really does it), your TTL is now just a hop count, the netmasks are more or less like the old IPv4 class networks instead of the classless setup we use today. Each network gets a minimum of /64 (that is 4 billion squared addresses), and you actually have proper and functional link local networking. But yes it uses colons instead of dots. Sorry about that.
_zoltan_ 1y ago
my ISP gives me native v6 and a /56. I had sooo much trouble, I gave up and just disabled v6 in the kernel. For example some sites might resolve a v6 address which is unreachable and the fallback takes ages. Some sites would resolve, connect but never load. Some must have been routing issues, etc. I'm not going to individually hunt down the issues, disabling is easier.
- commandersaki 1y ago
  Hehe, my ISP offers v6, but for an extra $5/mo they're providing a static IP. I went with the latter, life has been headache free.
commandersaki 1y ago
Just spent the last 6 months delivering a code low deploy high platform / initiative for a government agency; v6 didn't make it on the requirements or nice to haves. Not a single user on the platform (so far) has said "oh I wish this was on IPv6".

rwmj 1y ago

The comment above was being downvoted quite a lot, and I'd quite like to know why. It seems reasonable to ensure that IPv6 works as a basic requirement for new projects (at least, ones which can be connected to a network).

slackfan 1y ago
The bell curve of engineering skill dictates that most don't want any new ideas that are outside their bubble.
- vachina 1y ago
  If something takes 10x the effort for 0x the return most will not do it.
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    if the Internet actually managed to move to v6 the end of NAT and CGNAT would be a huge win. Also, look at the price of every v4 address you have to rent, and compare it to v6 and tell me there's no return. I've practically built an entire career out of finding ways for customers to use fewer v4 addresses and the demand is there because v4 addresses are expensive as shit due to their scarcity.
  - rwmj 1y ago
    I agree there is definitely more work required to get something working with IPv6 (though not 10x). However to say that doing this is "0 x the return". You're ignoring a solid third to half of the broad internet, which is not nothing. Plus if you're trying to sell to me then I'm definitely not going to adopt your product if you've made no effort on IPv6.
  - IgorPartola 1y ago
    It takes as much or less effort than IPv4. And sorry if you set up networks and don’t know how to do that with IPv6, you shouldn’t be doing what you are doing. If it takes you 10x as much effort to set up something that is actively simpler, you need an education or a career change.
morshu9001 1y ago
There are many new projects that are ipv4-only, and it doesn't mean they failed.
- IgorPartola 1y ago
  If you created a token ring network for your K8s cluster and it worked fine I wouldn’t say you failed. But I would say you are not doing the right things. This is the same. IPv4 is deprecated. Stop using it for things like your AWS VPC. If it doesn’t work aggressively file bug reports.
  - morshu9001 1y ago
    Or, I can focus on getting the project done. If IPv6 is a requirement then I'll do it, no complaints. Chasing nice-to-haves is how the project explodes in complexity. Which btw, is what ipv6 did. They just needed to enlarge the address space, instead it became a whole redesign that was not only harder to adopt but also inherently more complicated than v4 (aside from removing fragmenting). So I wouldn't even say it's the right thing, it's just what someone else wants. Maybe a compromise will be reached in v7, like v6 packet format that otherwise acts like v4 and carries over the old /32s.
    - IgorPartola 1y ago
      Oh my god are we back to trying to cram 8 bytes of data into a 4 byte field? You’d think people on a site called Hacker News would understand basic arithmetic.
      - morshu9001 1y ago
        "ipv6 packet format" means 16 byte addr. Don't talk down to people.
        IgorPartola 1y ago
        You are right but 8 bytes into 4 bytes sounded more on illustrative in my head. And while I try to make a point to be kind to people who do not know things, if you choose to express a clearly nonsensical opinion in such strong terms, on a forum that has discussed to death how you cannot cram more addresses into an IPv4 header, and something you can check for yourself so easily, yeah sorry you deserve a terse response of that’s not how bytes work. You did not bother to do 60 seconds of education before spouting this tired nonsense.

theideaofcoffee 1y ago

Agree 100%. There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". It makes most things a lot easier than its v4 counterparts. I'd go so far as to say not deploying v6 is actively negligent.

michaelcampbell 1y ago
> There is no excuse other than "v6 addressing and subnetting is haaaard". This is just absurd on its face. There are very real human, political, engineering, and financial reasons to not want to upgrade things that are IPV4 only. _SHOULD_ one do this, absolutely, but there's a lot more to it than people pulling the "hard" card. There's a bevy of reasons it IS hard, and very few of them are just obstinate luddites.
- theideaofcoffee 1y ago
  When did the post that I was responding to say anything about upgrades? The comment was about greenfield projects. I reiterate my point: if in a -greenfield- project you're not building IPv6 native, you're negligent. Get up on your reading comprehension. If there's no IPv6 support, be an engineer and -make- some: write the software that needs the support, use different vendors that don't break it just because they are actively lazy and can't be bothered to implement RFCs that are, at this point, decades old. IPv4 needs to go away yesterday.
  - michaelcampbell 1y ago
    > Get up on your reading comprehension. The ad hominem, nice.
no-stegosaur 1y ago
Just imagine the world was used to subnets and NAT would be the new thing to learn. Everyone would go "NAT breaks all the time" and "portforwarding is weird" and whatnot. IPv6 is not harder, people just confuse "harder" with "not being used to".

ktosobcy 1y ago

Well, IPv6 would be nice but my experience so far was that having it enabled on my machines/local network usually resulted in something not working :/

ancarda 1y ago
When was the last time you tried? I used to run into issues too but for a few years now it's basically "just worked".
- ktosobcy 1y ago
  about 1 year ago (after mooving with new ISP…)

liveoneggs 1y ago

I'll call you the next time HE decides to stop routing ipv6 from europe to new york or when your corporate vpn is ipv4 only but your resolver is preferring AAAA records

JeanMarcS 1y ago
"IPv6 only or at least dual stack"
- liveoneggs 1y ago
  "the next time HE decides to stop routing ipv6 from europe to new york"
theideaofcoffee 1y ago
Then I will dead pan tell you to engage a second provider. I will also tell you to have your corporate IT people ring me so we can do some remedial IPv6 training.
- patrakov 1y ago
  Dear Sir, The absence of IPv6 within our organizational network is a deliberate and carefully considered decision, implemented in accordance with the requirements of our current cyber insurance provider. Enabling IPv6 would invalidate our existing insurance coverage, which in turn would result in the loss of a critical client whose continued partnership depends on our maintaining this specific insurer. This dependency arises from regulatory obligations that compel our client to source services exclusively from suppliers holding cyber insurance from accredited providers. We recognize the technical benefits of IPv6, but compliance and risk management considerations must take precedence under these circumstances.
  - theideaofcoffee 1y ago
    Absolutely wild. Sounds like there were organizational problems where the correct technically-minded people weren't invited into the vendor eval process for that "insurance" provider, nor were they given the ability to push back on insane requirements from a customer. This is a symptom of hiring the cheapest, least sophisticated box-ticking compliance and insurance providers. How do I know? Because I've worked with more than I want to count. And that's all that they know how to do. Sure, they'll give you the certification, or the insurance, but it will be non-stop pain starting the day you sign the contract with them. A real, competent provider/insurer would take the problem on head-on and be the adviser that you are hiring them to be. They would advise you about the real, actual risks and positives. Then you would have air-cover to go tell the customer during the procurement stage to go pound sand. Insane that you would actually allow a prospective customer to dictate how you do things internally. That also smacks of the customer not having the technical sophistication to even know about the things they are demanding, they just read about the random lines they can throw in a contract because others did. This industry is fucked and deserves every ounce of comeuppance coming its way.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago

It's true that at this point future proofing demands it. Is anyone happy about it in ipv4 land? No. I just think it is ironic that the biggest use of ipv6 is cgnat, and it's what they crow about in ipv6 uptake, despite the fact ipv6 is religiously opposed to NATs. Regular NATs you have control over with poking holes. Cgnat you are restricted to tail scale stuff.

Symbiote 1y ago
I think you misunderstand. CGNAT is IPv4. IPv6 is sometimes (often?) provided alongside, because of the limitations of a CGNAT IPv6 connection.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  Your cgnat isn't taking an ipv6 addressed phone and interfacing with the ipv4 internet? Or are you trying to say the ipv4 is what is natted? Because the ipv4 is where all the stuff the ipv6 phone wants.
  - toast0 1y ago
    > Because the ipv4 is where all the stuff the ipv6 phone wants. There's still some ipv4 only services, but most of the big ones are dual stack. Looks like right now tiktok is v4only, which is probably significant, but Google, Facebook, Netflix are dual stack. Amazon/EC2 have lots of v4 only bits and pieces, but at least www and cdn are dual stack. Github is also v4 only and that's important, but how many people are pulling from their phone?
    - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
      I ran Starlink for a while. CGNAT. No fun running servers. 5G internet? CGNAT. ISPs that support IPV6, they will probably still run NATs. So here's a question: if your ipv6 is behind CGNAT and calls an ipv6 on the other side of the CGNAT: is it still one-way, or un-NAT'ed? And you agree the non-oligarch internet is ipv4, along with a large part of the oligarch internet.

ta1243 1y ago

Why? IPv4 works. IPv6 often doesn't. I'd love to see a benefit in ipv6, I see no benefits at all, I can't run an ipv6 only network, so I have to run ipv4, and everything I need runs on ipv4, why do I need to double my workload to run ipv6 and ipv4. My ipv6 only ssid at home sits idle other than a test vm because when I reach a problem I just move onto my ipv4 only ssid and everything works.

morshu9001 1y ago
Making v6 a separate network from v4 was a mistake in hindsight. They needed to roll this out in steps, first one being you keep the same IP address and all except you're just using v6 instead of v4, with a NAT etc like before (which ofc you could turn off if you want). People only needed more addresses, not everything different.
- ZWoz 1y ago
  You can't fit 128bit number in 32bit field. All suggestions I have seen are missing something or reinventing network address translation, poorly.
  - morshu9001 1y ago
    Expanding the address size did require a larger field but didn't require wiping out the existing addresses or anything else. We got the new packet header and near ubiquitous support for it, but that's not everything.
- ta1243 1y ago
  I made a deliberate choice to see if ipv6 was ready. I don't need ipv6, I do need ipv4. ipv6 doesn't work, ipv4 does. The alternative (dual stack) is more work for no reason. If ipv6 ever works then great. I built a test ipv6 network for work but a lot of equipment simply didn't support it, and of that which did our suppliers said "well it might work but nobody actually uses it so we don't know" It's a solution to a problem which was solved in a more backwards compatible way decades ago. It would be lovely if it worked, but it still doesn't.

tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago

For my home network, I really tried. But in the end, after several times running into weird issues where some pages were working and others weren't, which were reliably resolved by turning off IPv6, I decided to leave the setting in the "Internet works" position. I don't know what the issue was the last time, and I don't want to know. In particular, I don't want to have to know. When I open the tap, I expect clear, safe, drinking water, not having to debug why the pipe isn't working.

IgorPartola 1y ago
Have you done the tutorial on Tunnel Broker?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 1y ago
  No. Because again, I want water to come out of the tap, not spend hours playing plumber. My ISP provides native IPv6, when it works, and it worked until it didn't, and because I wanted to use the Internet rather than debug the Internet, I took the easy way out. IDGAF whether it was something I could have configured differently that only becomes relevant in some cases, a bug in my router, an issue with my ISPs network, or someone else's misconfiguration: There is a setting in my router, and with the toggle on the left, my Internet works reliably without me having to touch things, with the toggle on the right, it occasionally demands attention at inopportune moments.
  - IgorPartola 1y ago
    I mean in that case yes it makes sense. You are not setting up any networks that affect anyone but you and maybe your family. My comment was directed at people that are setting up infrastructure aimed at hosting systems that consumers intact with or systems that run internal applications, such as an AWS VPC that hosts a variety of services. Your ISP also would fall into that category.
chirayuk 1y ago
I had these same concerns for a while. Earlier this year, I turned on IPv6 and run a dual stack on my home network (my mac is browsing HN via IPv6.) Do you remember what sites didn't load for you?

Spooky23 1y ago

I can't see any advantages at all. I deployed it at home and in a few networks my company runs. We had nothing but stupid issues and zero benefit, and I was looking for them. Basic stuff like getting automatically applied dynamic hostnames from the ISP fighting with whatever things are called internally wastes alot of time. I think most devices were getting 4 different addresses for various purposes and the devs had no idea which one they should be using. I'm sure we were doing it wrong, or used the wrong gear, or whatever. But again, no discernable benefit to anyone involved. If we were located in a place with no IPv4 availability, probably a different story... but we don't. We turned it off except for a few networks that just provide client internet.

IgorPartola 1y ago
There are many advantages. I listed some in a reply to another comment. It is like carrying a Swiss Army knife in your pocket. Until you start it seems like you’d never need it. Once you do, you won’t live without it.
- this_user 1y ago
  It's more like carrying an overly complex Swiss Army knife that somewhere has a knife function, but that knife function doesn't intuitively work like a regular knife and has all kinds of weird failure modes and edge cases, when all you want is to slice an apple.
  - IgorPartola 1y ago
    IPv6 is in most ways simpler than IPv4. There are a couple of gotchas but honestly all you really need to do to see this look at the IPv4 and IPv6 packet header structures to see that they difference is minimal and IPv6 has less room for complexity. You lose NAT (it is possible but nobody really does it), your TTL is now just a hop count, the netmasks are more or less like the old IPv4 class networks instead of the classless setup we use today. Each network gets a minimum of /64 (that is 4 billion squared addresses), and you actually have proper and functional link local networking. But yes it uses colons instead of dots. Sorry about that.

_zoltan_ 1y ago

my ISP gives me native v6 and a /56. I had sooo much trouble, I gave up and just disabled v6 in the kernel. For example some sites might resolve a v6 address which is unreachable and the fallback takes ages. Some sites would resolve, connect but never load. Some must have been routing issues, etc. I'm not going to individually hunt down the issues, disabling is easier.

commandersaki 1y ago
Hehe, my ISP offers v6, but for an extra $5/mo they're providing a static IP. I went with the latter, life has been headache free.

commandersaki 1y ago

Just spent the last 6 months delivering a code low deploy high platform / initiative for a government agency; v6 didn't make it on the requirements or nice to haves. Not a single user on the platform (so far) has said "oh I wish this was on IPv6".