4 ms·

I will redirect all IPv4 to a static page on my site. It’s a clear and simple message to the consumer: your ISP does not give you a modern and adequate service.

I will redirect all IPv4 to a static page on my site. It’s a clear and simple message to the consumer: your ISP does not give you a modern and adequate service. This is costing me money, I have to pay for IPv4 addresses and I estimate the loss to be significantly higher than 1/365 of my costs. So it’s only natural to reciprocate and deny service for 1/365 of a year. The only people who should do this are webmasters. If network admins do it, they are breaking IPv6 exactly when it’s the only means to get to my site. It’s also critical that the services are still accessible but non-functional and give a clear reason for it: you are not receiving a proper Internet service. As opposed to a nondescript error message. Savvy consumers can do it too, off course, but it would have an impact of exactly zero in the grand scheme of things, since deploying IPv6 will cost providers more than the lost 0.05% traffic for a day.

jacquesm 12y ago
It's only the smallest websites like you that will do this. Which really is the wrong way around. My ISP does not even give me an IPv6 if I beg them for it. But now imagine what the impact would be if Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Facebook would do this. That would make some waves. If your loss due to having an IP address is > 1/365th of your costs, forgive me, but then you're not a serious enough player to really matter, likely only a very very few number of people will notice that and they will assume that you're doing them a disservice.
manacit 12y ago
I mean no offense, but this is a bad idea. The OS X implementation of Happy Eyeballs[1] doesn't prefer IPv6 over IPv4, and will often choose IPv4 in a dual stack environment, even when there's perfectly good IPv6 connectivity[2]. The end result of this, of course, is that users are going to see a page bemoaning their ISP when they've done everything right. Furthermore, I find the reasoning behind breaking your site for a day quite laughable. Do you spend any extra time developing the site for browsers and operating systems other than your preferred? If so, you should block them out for a period of time as well because, by your logic, it's costing you money. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs [2]: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/hampered-eyeballs https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/hampered-eyeballs
- cornholio 12y ago
  Any implementation that prefers IPv4 over IPv6 is broken by design, see RFC3484. While I do understand people will do whatever it takes to get things working in the face of incomplete and barely functional IPv6 roll out, that road can only lead to chaos; the only solution is to stick to the standards and fix the actual problems. As for my "laughable reasoning", you aren't really comparing apples with apples. There clearly needs to be multiple types of devices with different capabilities and it's only natural to support your users. On the other hand there is no need for IPv4 on the internet, quite the contrary, almost all of the backbone infrastructure is dual stack for years and we have the solutions to support and isolate legacy IPv4 systems where that really makes sense. So it's not a technical problem, it's an economic and political problem: the people hurt most by IPv4 can't really do anything to force the rest of the internet to move forward. But coming back to your argument: sure, standard compliant clients are preferable and I will absolutely drop support for clients that cost me more than they are worth. I can't afford to do that with IPv4 but I feel I need to send a message, for what it's worth. Sure, my site is small and I can afford it, maybe next year more people will do it and so on. Some day you will thank us :)
  - manacit 12y ago
    I would argue that it's a political and economic problem that certain devices exist without the capability to support the latest HTML5/CSS3/JS standards. I worry that your idealism will serve to only upset users, who will undoubtedly blame you, not their ISPs. It would be wonderful if every device conformed to the RFC, but much like certain browsers don't behave to spec, certain implementations of many other internet technologies suffer the same problem. Of course, I am a proponent of IPv6 deployment (I doubt you'll find many people who are not), but I can't agree with your assertion that IPv4 has no place on the internet, it's practically impossible to force a transition merely by ignoring the world around you and trudging on.

jacquesm 12y ago

It's only the smallest websites like you that will do this. Which really is the wrong way around. My ISP does not even give me an IPv6 if I beg them for it. But now imagine what the impact would be if Google, Twitter, Microsoft and Facebook would do this. That would make some waves. If your loss due to having an IP address is > 1/365th of your costs, forgive me, but then you're not a serious enough player to really matter, likely only a very very few number of people will notice that and they will assume that you're doing them a disservice.

manacit 12y ago

I mean no offense, but this is a bad idea. The OS X implementation of Happy Eyeballs[1] doesn't prefer IPv6 over IPv4, and will often choose IPv4 in a dual stack environment, even when there's perfectly good IPv6 connectivity[2]. The end result of this, of course, is that users are going to see a page bemoaning their ISP when they've done everything right. Furthermore, I find the reasoning behind breaking your site for a day quite laughable. Do you spend any extra time developing the site for browsers and operating systems other than your preferred? If so, you should block them out for a period of time as well because, by your logic, it's costing you money. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs [2]: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/hampered-eyeballs https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/hampered-eyeballs

cornholio 12y ago
Any implementation that prefers IPv4 over IPv6 is broken by design, see RFC3484. While I do understand people will do whatever it takes to get things working in the face of incomplete and barely functional IPv6 roll out, that road can only lead to chaos; the only solution is to stick to the standards and fix the actual problems. As for my "laughable reasoning", you aren't really comparing apples with apples. There clearly needs to be multiple types of devices with different capabilities and it's only natural to support your users. On the other hand there is no need for IPv4 on the internet, quite the contrary, almost all of the backbone infrastructure is dual stack for years and we have the solutions to support and isolate legacy IPv4 systems where that really makes sense. So it's not a technical problem, it's an economic and political problem: the people hurt most by IPv4 can't really do anything to force the rest of the internet to move forward. But coming back to your argument: sure, standard compliant clients are preferable and I will absolutely drop support for clients that cost me more than they are worth. I can't afford to do that with IPv4 but I feel I need to send a message, for what it's worth. Sure, my site is small and I can afford it, maybe next year more people will do it and so on. Some day you will thank us :)
- manacit 12y ago
  I would argue that it's a political and economic problem that certain devices exist without the capability to support the latest HTML5/CSS3/JS standards. I worry that your idealism will serve to only upset users, who will undoubtedly blame you, not their ISPs. It would be wonderful if every device conformed to the RFC, but much like certain browsers don't behave to spec, certain implementations of many other internet technologies suffer the same problem. Of course, I am a proponent of IPv6 deployment (I doubt you'll find many people who are not), but I can't agree with your assertion that IPv4 has no place on the internet, it's practically impossible to force a transition merely by ignoring the world around you and trudging on.