3 ms·
Eh. IPv6 is probably cheaper to run compared to running large scale CGNAT. It's well deployed in mobile and in areas without a lot of legacy IPv4 assignments. M
by toast0 8mo ago
Eh. IPv6 is probably cheaper to run compared to running large scale CGNAT. It's well deployed in mobile and in areas without a lot of legacy IPv4 assignments. Most of the high traffic content networks support it, so if you're an eyeball network, you can shift costs away from CGNAT to IPv6. You still have to do both though.
Is it my favorite? No. Is it well supported? Not everywhere. Is it going to win, eventually? Probably, but maybe IPv8 will happen, in which case maybe they learn and it it has a 10 years to 50% of traffic instead of 30 years to 50% of traffic.
- notepad0x90 8mo agoit depends on who you're talking about but no disagreement with cost for ISPs. For endusers (including CSPs) it's another story. Even on its own it's hard to support, but for most people they have to maintain a dual stack. v4 isn't going away entirely any time soon.