6 ms·
IPv6 was superceded by NAT a long time ago. It will die a slw and quiet death which is why it is now being ignored by training facilities and experts worldwide.
by alt227 10mo ago
IPv6 was superceded by NAT a long time ago. It will die a slw and quiet death which is why it is now being ignored by training facilities and experts worldwide.
- MBCook 10mo agoIt was? Isn’t it what all the cell phones networks use these days? And most ISP’s? They may hand the end user device a IPv4 address but don’t they actually use IPv6?
- alt227 10mo agoYes as I said in a sibling post the telcos are the only ones using it, and that is the only reason that graphs like the google client one exist. That is only because it already exists and is cheaper than using NAT when you have hundreds of millions of clients. IPv6 only ISPs will never leave the mobile space.
- kstrauser 10mo ago“The largest ISPs are the only ones using it” is another way of describing it as ubiquitous.
- alt227 10mo agoI disagree. If they were the largest ISPs then adoption would already be over 50% instead of stalling below it. I would say its more "Wireless only ISPs are the only ones using it"
- kstrauser 10mo ago> I would say its more "Wireless only ISPs are the only ones using it" So… the largest ISPs. Recent number show about 94% of Americans have cell phones and 92% of American households have Internet connections. In raw numbers, that’s about 300M cell phones and 111M households. If zero fixed ISPs support IPv6, that’d still be about 75% of total Internet connections that do.
- alt227 10mo ago> So… the largest ISPs. Yep, a few gatekeepers of a single device space. Your numbers are wrong, seee the google graph everybody is pointing to: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- patmorgan23 10mo agoName a large isp not using V6
- lxgr 10mo agoMaybe in the US. I've seen IPv6-only connections via DS-Lite in more than one other country on wired home ISPs.
- patrickmcnamara 10mo agohttps://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- alt227 10mo agoPeople love this graph and regularly tout it as if it explains full internet usage. Especially when they dont bother to add any explanation or comment alongside it. This graph is mainly due to the fact that telcos use IPv6 for mobile devices, nothing more. Over time you will see that graph flatline and peter out as mobile device uage reaches critical mass.
- lazide 10mo agoEvery major ISP in the US, India, and most of the rest of Asia that I’ve seen is handing out and using IPv6 now too. Hell, chances are if you got a new router (like any new client) for your ISP, you’d be on v6 too.
- alt227 10mo agoYep, and even with all those countries with their billions of mobile devices IPv6 use still hasnt even reached 50%. Pretty much all ISPs hand out both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses to their clients, this is nothing new. When they start only issueing IPv6 IPs is when it would start truly taking off, but it will never get to that point and it will never happen.
- DrewADesign 10mo agoDigital Ocean didn’t even have an ipv6 address on by default in the droplet I created last week. It’s just a switch to flip, but I’ll bet the support costs of hobbyists/enthusiasts not realizing they needed to also write firewall rules, make sure ports weren’t open for databases and things like that for ipv6.
- PaulHoule 10mo agoIt's a "just doesn't work" experience every time that I try it and I don't experience any value from it, it's not like there isn't anything I can connect to on IPv6 that I can't connect to on IPv4. My ISP has finally mastered providing me with reliable albeit slow DSL. Fiber would change my life, there just isn't any point in asking for IPv6. Also note those bloated packets are death for many modern applications like VoIP.
- Spooky23 10mo agoExactly. Spectrum delivers good IPv6 service in my area. I tried it when I upgraded my gateway. All of my devices are assigned 4 IPv6 IPs, hostnames are replaced by auto assigned stuff from the ISP, and lots of random things don’t work. I went from being pumped to learn more to realizing I’m going to invest a lot of time and I could not identify and tangible benefit.
- tjohns 10mo agoThe biggest tangible benefit is you don't need to worry about NAT port mapping any more. Every device can have a public address, and you can have multiple servers exposing services on the same port without a conflict. (The flip side is having a network-level firewall is more important than ever.) You also don't have to worry about running a DHCP server anymore, at least on small networks. The simplicity of SLAAC is a breath of fresh air, and removes DHCP as a single point of failure for a network.
- whatevaa 10mo agoFew people care about exposing a server in the first place, even fewer care about multiple servers on a single port.
- anon7000 10mo agoWhat are you even basing that on? Here are some facts: - You have to pay money to get a static IPv4 address for cloud machines on eg AWS. Anything needing a static IPv4 will cost more and more as demand increases. NAT doesn’t exactly fix that. - Mainstream IoT protocols have a hard dependency on IPv6 (eg Matter/Thread). Not to mention plenty of 5g deployments. - Many modern networks quietly use IPv6 internally. I mean routing is simpler without NAT. So it almost definitely won’t die. It’s more likely it’ll slowly and quietly continue growing behind the scenes, even if consumers are still seeing IPv4 on their home networks.
- cyberax 10mo agoMatter/Thread use private IPv6 addresses so it's just an implementation detail. Nobody is exposing light switches to the public Internet.
- hdgvhicv 10mo agoIPv4 addresses have been dropping in price for a few years and are cheaper in real terms than at my point in the last 15
- throw0101a 10mo ago> IPv4 addresses have been dropping in price for a few years and are cheaper in real terms than at my point in the last 15 More IPv6 deployments may (ironically?) help reduce IPv4 prices as you can get IPv6 'for free' and have Internet connectivity (and not have to worry about exhaustion in any practical way). Doing CG-NAT could reduce the number IPv4 addresses you need to acquire.
- hdgvhicv 10mo agoIPv4 addresses are basically free - indeed they are a profit centre. At $20 an address that’s $2 a year at most (10% ROI) where many charge 20 times that ($5/month isn’t unheard of)
- wolvoleo 10mo ago
- nine_k 10mo agoThis is not even funny to read, given huge networks like T-Mobile USA being IPv6-only.
- cyberax 10mo agoThey are using IPv6 as a fancy transport protocol for IPv4 NAT.
- nine_k 10mo agoNo; most sites I reach from the phone seem to be reached via IPv6. E.g. hitting whatismyip.org exposes an IPv6 (though mentions an IPv4 because they're trying to discover that, too). Some sites do not support IPv6; for those indeed there's a XLAT464 service.
- orangeboats 10mo agoBy being IPv6-only they are effectively making their users to preferentially connect over native IPv6 though. Personal anecdote, but once you have IPv6 setup properly (meaning your devices prefer IPv6 over IPv4) 70-80% of your internet traffic will be IPv6. The NAT64 is really just there for the holdouts.
- ectospheno 10mo agoI run dual stack at home with dns64/nat64. I average 50/50 traffic v4/v6. Web browsing gets skewed v6 but large file transfers and some streaming pushed it back to 50/50 overall. My family would revolt if I went v6 only so I'm not sure I'd say its just there for holdouts. Major annoyances include any old device and my hue bridge.
- apatheticonion 10mo agoAWS charges for ipv4 addresses but ipv6 addresses are free. ipv4 with NAT doesn't supercede ipv6, it just extends its life.
- tjohns 10mo agoNAT doesn't solve everything, and creates a whole new class of problems that you can just avoid by adopting IPv6 natively. And it's definitely not being ignored at larger companies. In particular, just off the top of my head... - T-Mobile US doesn't even assign clients an IPv4 address anymore. Their entire network is IPv6 native. - Many cloud providers charge extra for IPv4 addresses, but give IPv6 addresses out for free.
- reincarnate0x14 10mo agoFor trivial cases NAT is easy, for complex situations it's a nightmare. I've been fighting a lonely battle against multiple-NAT VPNs as being the solution to the wrong problem for longer than I care to remember, and I'm tired boss. A few years ago we had a client site go offline because a local network guy just didn't like IPv6 and turned it off, not realizing that a huge amount of stuff was happening automatically and that's why he hadn't been needing to work on it.
- lxgr 10mo agoOh no, somebody should warn all the ISPs deploying IPv6-native connections with v4 reachable over some fallback technology (464XLAT, DS-Lite, NAT64 etc.) to their hundreds of millions if not billions of customers! --Sent from my IPv6
- alt227 10mo agoThe only ISPs issuing IPv6 only connections are mobile device operators and Telcos. THey are a small subset of ISPs in the world and IPv6 only connections will never gain any traction outside of that world. I agree it will not die so I retract that statement, but it will never fully replace IPv4 in standard wired internet connections.