4 ms·
Because then services offered by their customers would not be reachable for over 97% of the internet. I would assume that's bad for business.
by pilif 12y ago
Because then services offered by their customers would not be reachable for over 97% of the internet.
I would assume that's bad for business.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- justincormack 12y agoThey will have to proxy stuff sure. But they need to start to roll out ipv6.
- pilif 12y agoproxying requires a public IP though. So you can have as much IPv6 in your backend as you want, the moment you want one of these machines to serve content to the wider public, you will need a public v4 address. You could use name based virtual hosting in case of plain HTTP (though there are still clients around that don't send correct host headers), but if your customers use HTTPS, you'll need one public V4 address per site because SNI still can't be used reliably.
- justincormack 12y agonon shared IPv4 proxying is going to start to get very expensive. It already is to some extent. But the number of backend machines is probably larger, so at least this saves some addresses. The next round of cloud price cuts could well be for ipv6 customers only...
- wmf 12y agoMany cloud customers would be fine with IPv6-only VMs and one IPv4 adddress on the outside of their load balancer. Yet cloud providers are building the opposite architecture.
- sneak 12y agoMost cloud customers are fine with RFC1918-IPv4-space VMs and one IPv4 address on the outside of their load balancer.
- blablabla123 12y agoThey need to start with a dual stack, that works for over 97% of the internet. Then v6 would be of actual use for customers and ISPs would have more reason to support v6.