3 ms·

Yup. Comcast's ideal world is where they sell TV via IP for $200/month + Amazon.com access with a referral fee, and block everything else.

agwa 12y ago
Comcast has laudably been on the forefront of deploying IPv6. And several other major consumer ISPs in the U.S. are working on deploying it as well (and in the interim, AT&T is offering tunneling with 6RD). Amazon, on the other hand, still does not support IPv6. I browse the Web from Comcast with a Firefox extension that tells me if a site is using IPv6 or not, and the lack of websites supporting IPv6 concerns me way more than the pace of IPv6 rollout by consumer ISPs. There's simply no conspiracy here.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  There isn't much reason for servers to support IPv6 yet. Clients can use 6to4, and will use it as soon as they become IPv6 only, because... well, there isn't much reason for servers to support IPv6 yet. (Yep, that's circular.) Servers will add support for IPv6 in due time, when admins get used to having it on their machines, and all network equipment supports it, and it stops breaking the sites for people on IPv4 only and people behind slower IPv6 tunnels.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    > Clients can use 6to4 And with that, the transition of the internet from a peer to peer network to a client/server model is finally completed. /not directed at you specifically; I'm just depressed from how efficiently the empower, democratic, anybody-can-publish qualities of the internet are being undone
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      We've already completed that transition when ISPs started blocking ports from their customers. Putting everybody in IPv6 will make things better, and odds are that it will create an entire new crop of descentralized services. But current http and smtp servers gain very little from supporting IPv6 just now.
  - tacticus 12y ago
    Actually there is a nice reason for any reasonable sized stack to support v6. it makes life easier. you run globally addressable ranges that just make life easier as you get to remove all those wonderful dnats and snats in your networks. as your internal ranges become easier to manage and more plentiful so you can layout your networks in ways that make sense. group services in IPs that make sense without ever really worrying about exhausting those ranges. comcast for example moved to v6 because they ran out of rfc1918 to run their administrative networks in.
  - p1mrx 12y ago
    I think you mean NAT64/DS-Lite/MAP (which are all types of carrier-grade NAT), since 6to4 is just a means of connecting two IPv6 endpoints across an IPv4 tunnel. This photo sums up the problem with relying on CGN: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jfesler/6751925977/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/jfesler/6751925977/ When an ISP funnels multiple users through the same IPv4 address, you can no longer use IP-based bans without inflicting collateral damage. One way around this problem is for both the ISP and the website to support bigger addresses.
  - agwa 12y ago
    > Clients can use 6to4, and will use it as soon as they become IPv6 only I think you mean NAT64. 6to4 is an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling mechanism, and thus would not be used by an IPv6-only host. > Servers will add support for IPv6 in due time, when admins get used to having it on their machines, and all network equipment supports it, and it stops breaking the sites for people on IPv4 only and people behind slower IPv6 tunnels. This is largely FUD. Network equipment has supported IPv6 for a while, IPv6 does not break sites for IPv4-only users, and there's no reason to believe that slow IPv6 tunnels are a significant problem. The performance and reliability myths were entirely debunked by the highly successful World IPv6 Day and World IPv6 Launch Day in 2011 and 2012, which is why forward-thinking companies like Google and Facebook have permanently enabled IPv6.

agwa 12y ago

Comcast has laudably been on the forefront of deploying IPv6. And several other major consumer ISPs in the U.S. are working on deploying it as well (and in the interim, AT&T is offering tunneling with 6RD). Amazon, on the other hand, still does not support IPv6. I browse the Web from Comcast with a Firefox extension that tells me if a site is using IPv6 or not, and the lack of websites supporting IPv6 concerns me way more than the pace of IPv6 rollout by consumer ISPs. There's simply no conspiracy here.

marcosdumay 12y ago
There isn't much reason for servers to support IPv6 yet. Clients can use 6to4, and will use it as soon as they become IPv6 only, because... well, there isn't much reason for servers to support IPv6 yet. (Yep, that's circular.) Servers will add support for IPv6 in due time, when admins get used to having it on their machines, and all network equipment supports it, and it stops breaking the sites for people on IPv4 only and people behind slower IPv6 tunnels.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  > Clients can use 6to4 And with that, the transition of the internet from a peer to peer network to a client/server model is finally completed. /not directed at you specifically; I'm just depressed from how efficiently the empower, democratic, anybody-can-publish qualities of the internet are being undone
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    We've already completed that transition when ISPs started blocking ports from their customers. Putting everybody in IPv6 will make things better, and odds are that it will create an entire new crop of descentralized services. But current http and smtp servers gain very little from supporting IPv6 just now.
- tacticus 12y ago
  Actually there is a nice reason for any reasonable sized stack to support v6. it makes life easier. you run globally addressable ranges that just make life easier as you get to remove all those wonderful dnats and snats in your networks. as your internal ranges become easier to manage and more plentiful so you can layout your networks in ways that make sense. group services in IPs that make sense without ever really worrying about exhausting those ranges. comcast for example moved to v6 because they ran out of rfc1918 to run their administrative networks in.
- p1mrx 12y ago
  I think you mean NAT64/DS-Lite/MAP (which are all types of carrier-grade NAT), since 6to4 is just a means of connecting two IPv6 endpoints across an IPv4 tunnel. This photo sums up the problem with relying on CGN: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jfesler/6751925977/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/jfesler/6751925977/ When an ISP funnels multiple users through the same IPv4 address, you can no longer use IP-based bans without inflicting collateral damage. One way around this problem is for both the ISP and the website to support bigger addresses.
- agwa 12y ago
  > Clients can use 6to4, and will use it as soon as they become IPv6 only I think you mean NAT64. 6to4 is an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling mechanism, and thus would not be used by an IPv6-only host. > Servers will add support for IPv6 in due time, when admins get used to having it on their machines, and all network equipment supports it, and it stops breaking the sites for people on IPv4 only and people behind slower IPv6 tunnels. This is largely FUD. Network equipment has supported IPv6 for a while, IPv6 does not break sites for IPv4-only users, and there's no reason to believe that slow IPv6 tunnels are a significant problem. The performance and reliability myths were entirely debunked by the highly successful World IPv6 Day and World IPv6 Launch Day in 2011 and 2012, which is why forward-thinking companies like Google and Facebook have permanently enabled IPv6.