4 ms·
As anyone who knows what you just condescendingly explained knows, anything short of 100% doesn't alleviate the problem that motivated IPv6 in the first place.
by jsmthrowaway 11y ago
As anyone who knows what you just condescendingly explained knows, anything short of 100% doesn't alleviate the problem that motivated IPv6 in the first place. Until absolutely everything is accessible via v6, we must continue to allocate v4 (or, worse, NAT it all), so we aren't really anywhere.
It was a side point. I'm on dual stack Comcast, so I already knew what you're telling me, and I made the point nonetheless.
- lucb1e 11y agoFirst of all, sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. People keep repeating we can't do X because we can't even deploy IPv6 and X is an equally large or bigger change. Since I've got v6 for years and am getting it in more and more places, we're getting there alright. So I do not understand how you can say we cannot deploy v6. You are running dual stack as well, clearly we are on the way there? And yes of course we first need widespread deployment before we can turn off v4 entirely, but the fact that we both have it means that people are getting it and that we can turn off v4 at some point in the future. And as an aside, we don't actually need 100% exactly: at 99% (or something) it's not going to be cost effective to get v4 addresses for everything anymore and more stuff will become v6-only.