Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


IPV6's Future
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

IPV6's Future

itoito Member, Host Rep

An increasing number of websites support IPV6 access.
But just supporting... It is not available without IPV4 as well...
Even Disney plus does not support IPV6...
IPV4 may be phased out in the next 50years? :)

«1

Comments

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    If you listen closely to IPv6 fanboys, v4 was depleted years ago and there are zero addresses left, we cannot add a single device to the internet without full v6 deployment.

    Thanked by 3tjn jsg elwebmaster
  • At least RIPE seems to have run out of IPv4 addresses now

  • yoursunnyyoursunny Member, IPv6 Advocate

    We use Named Data Networking here.
    There's no address.
    Every packet has a name.
    The network routes packets by name.
    Name length is unlimited (practically, up to 2000 bytes).
    It scales infinitely.

    Example name:
    /8=yoursunny/8=pushups/8=20160801/8=240/8=00000001.webm/35=%00%00%01z%2Bb%12%A0/33=%03

  • ShakibShakib Member, Patron Provider

    IPv4 will be obsolete by 2040 most likely.

    I have rent out quite some /40 and /44 IPv6 prefix this year and will be out of stock very soon.

    So definitely there is a good demand for IPv6 now all over.

    If all networks and ISPs are forced to adopt IPv6 by governments of every country by 2030, only then a IPv6 only internet might be possible.

    If that doesn't happens, IPv4 price will be keep increasing and I will be very much rich by 2030 due to several long term contracts I have with some IPv4 owners.

    Let's see what happens. :wink:

  • @ito said:
    An increasing number of websites support IPV6 access.
    But just supporting... It is not available without IPV4 as well...
    Even Disney plus does not support IPV6...
    IPV4 may be phased out in the next 50years? :)

    North America has lots of IPv4 users and so North American centric companies tend to be behind others that have global customers like Netflix and Facebook.

    You can bet Disney has a plan to support IPv6, their streaming service was a "fast" rollout compared to established players.

  • Here in South Korea, the current IPv6 usage rate is very low in S.Korea.

    Korean telecommunication companies are not introducing IPv6 well, especially on the home Internet, and IPv6 is used little by little on the mobile celluar side.

    Moreover, ipTIME, the brand of Internet routers with the highest share in S.Korea, does not yet support IPv6, and there is no plan to support it yet.

    Of course, S.Korea has 100 million IPv4 addresses, twice the population, so why pay extra for IPv6? It's a position.

    Thanked by 1elwebmaster
  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    @jar said:
    If you listen closely to IPv6 fanboys, v4 was depleted years ago and there are zero addresses left, we cannot add a single device to the internet without full v6 deployment.

    They are living in a jar.

    Thanked by 1jar
  • Thanked by 1yoursunny
  • For a company the last thing they will want is that some customers complain “I can’t visit your website!”. So even if IPv6 is widely deployed, IPv4 will not fade away immediately anyway

    Thanked by 1wpyoga
  • @Tony40 said:
    The Future of Internet: Blockchain and IPv8 Are Going To Drive Business Deployment

    https://medium.com/bitcherryglobal/the-future-of-internet-blockchain-and-ipv8-are-going-to-drive-business-deployment-e713413533b6

    That medium handle tho...

  • itoito Member, Host Rep

    @Shakib said:
    IPv4 will be obsolete by 2040 most likely.

    I have rent out quite some /40 and /44 IPv6 prefix this year and will be out of stock very soon.

    So definitely there is a good demand for IPv6 now all over.

    If all networks and ISPs are forced to adopt IPv6 by governments of every country by 2030, only then a IPv6 only internet might be possible.

    If that doesn't happens, IPv4 price will be keep increasing and I will be very much rich by 2030 due to several long term contracts I have with some IPv4 owners.

    Let's see what happens. :wink:

    Forward-thinking "Godfather"
    Also is the $1 VPS still in stock for Black Friday?
    ;)

  • itoito Member, Host Rep

    @ns110621 said:
    Here in South Korea, the current IPv6 usage rate is very low in S.Korea.

    Korean telecommunication companies are not introducing IPv6 well, especially on the home Internet, and IPv6 is used little by little on the mobile celluar side.

    Moreover, ipTIME, the brand of Internet routers with the highest share in S.Korea, does not yet support IPv6, and there is no plan to support it yet.

    Of course, S.Korea has 100 million IPv4 addresses, twice the population, so why pay extra for IPv6? It's a position.

    I regret this.
    Japan, which is generally compared to Korea, has fully popularized IPV6.
    IPV4 is almost cost-free for countries with small populations, and JPNIC offers a lot of IPV4 as a gift for registrants.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    IP4 lifetime can be prolonged very much - and highly likely will be. Example: SRV records which allow port info in addition to just an IP. That would allow for tens of thousands of web sites/servers/services like "www.foo.com", "web5.bar.com", etc to share a single IP or, more practically, hundreds of VPS on a (beefy) node with a single IP yet full functionality (as opposed to e.g. http fields).

    Plus, obviously changing to use an already existing DNS record type is MUCH simpler and cheaper than changing and/or replacing lots and lots of (often quite expensive) hardware and software. Also note that address lookup almost always is performed/provided by the OS so software changes would be quite minimal and simple (you get back an IP and a port instead of only an address and using a fixed port); far, far simpler than the changes IPv6 requires. Also note that those changes could be done *gradually, e.g. during a 3 year window which would would provide ample time for OS and server software to implement the required rather small and simple changes.

    And Bang, we'd have say a hundred times of today's addressability without, as is very often the case, wasting IPs for a single service like http/https or email.

    Thanked by 1ralf
  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited December 2021

    @jsg said:
    IP4 lifetime can be prolonged very much - and highly likely will be. Example: SRV records which allow port info in addition to just an IP. That would allow for tens of thousands of web sites/servers/services like "www.foo.com", "web5.bar.com", etc to share a single IP or, more practically, hundreds of VPS on a (beefy) node with a single IP yet full functionality (as opposed to e.g. http fields).

    There's no point to this since the days of SNI. When XP became obsolete, so did the need for unique IP per domain. And then a reverse proxy does this today without fucking with SRV records.

    Web sites would be the worst example for your point. Non http services would benefit.

    Plus, obviously changing to use an already existing DNS record type is MUCH simpler and cheaper than changing and/or replacing lots and lots of (often quite expensive) hardware and software. Also note that address lookup almost always is performed/provided by the OS so software changes would be quite minimal and simple (you get back an IP and a port instead of only an address and using a fixed port); far, far simpler than the changes IPv6 requires. Also note that those changes could be done *gradually, e.g. during a 3 year window which would would provide ample time for OS and server software to implement the required rather small and simple changes.

    And Bang, we'd have say a hundred times of today's addressability without, as is very often the case, wasting IPs for a single service like http/https or email.

    Your hundred times number is ridiculous and further shows not only that you don't know wtf you're talking about, but you refuse to learn anything.

    The IP's are needed for clients (by factors of hundreds), not to reduce server needs as I already pointed out the SRV thing with webservers is silly and doesn't gain back IP's. In your last sentence, a webserver and email server hosted on same server still only uses a single IP today because they use different ports.

    Thanked by 2drunkendog Pixels
  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    Part of why IPv6 isn't more widely adopted is because in reality there is no shortage of IPv4 on the open market for those entities that need them.

    Thanked by 2tjn jsg
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @Shakib said: If that doesn't happens, IPv4 price will be keep increasing and I will be very much rich by 2030 due to several long term contracts I have with some IPv4 owners.

    I hope you own those because if you're leasing, there's nothing protecting you from a price hike. What are you going to do if they say 'nah price goes up or we revoke'? You can try to sue them but in the meantime you're out of those blocks.

    @TimboJones said: The IP's are needed for clients

    Even this is a "not really". CGNAT is a thing and a lot of smaller regional ISP's are deploying it.

    I've been going off what the big clouds are doing. They have far more metrics into enterprise businesses, massive networks and client bases, and basically where things are trending. To date Amazon is buying every block they can get their hands on (well, anything that's /16+ it seems, I don't think they're buying /20's and such yet).

    So long as Amazon/Microsoft/Google/Alibaba are buying/holding IPV4, then the end isn't neigh.

    We're 15 - 20 years out from any possibility of an e-commerce company going IPV6 only without it being seen as a publicity stunt, or someone getting fired.

    @jbiloh said: Part of why IPv6 isn't more widely adopted is because in reality there is no shortage of IPv4 on the open market for those entities that need them.

    Yep, if you need it, you can find it. You'll pay out the ass on initial, but renewals are a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

    Good luck getting a vote passed in any of the regions for a major price hike. Even then, if companies IP prices were go to up 400%...it'll just get passed through to the customers. No ones going to eat it because you need it to survive online.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1Shakib
  • @Francisco said:

    Good luck getting a vote passed in any of the regions for a major price hike. Even then, if companies IP prices were go to up 400%...it'll just get passed through to the customers. No ones going to eat it because you need it to survive online.

    well if they really want to break IPv4 ICANN could just delete IPv4 IRR and let anyone announce any block: it'd break internet about as fast as thermonuclear war would :tongue:

  • @Francisco said:
    Even then, if companies IP prices were go to up 400%...it'll just get passed through to the customers. No ones going to eat it because you need it to survive online.

    Francisco

    I think at that time, Regional Internet Registry (RIPE, AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC) will fail as regulator & administrator..

  • IPv6 adoption is low because, realistically speaking, there isn't real demand for it. Sure, ISPs, hosting, service and cloud companies are looking at IPv6, but I haven't personally heard any home user saying "I'm going to choose my ISP based on native IPv6 availability or dual-stack services that they provide". The avarege Joe is about price, speed and availability.

    Will IPv4 be phased out? Don't really think so, since there's isn't any reason to do this, especially since it's going to be difficult phasing out legacy protocols and cellular connections [remember, 3/4G is still IPv4 only (you could use CGNAT, but why complicate it), not sure about 5G though]

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @chocolateshirt said: I think at that time, Regional Internet Registry (RIPE, AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC) will fail as regulator & administrator..

    Right, it would turn them into for-profit groups instead of covering costs + some buffer.

    Francisco

  • Look at my signature. There so many reasons to not implement IPv6. Staggering!

  • @inetzero said:

    Will IPv4 be phased out? Don't really think so, since there's isn't any reason to do this, especially since it's going to be difficult phasing out legacy protocols and cellular connections [remember, 3/4G is still IPv4 only (you could use CGNAT, but why complicate it), not sure about 5G though]

    I don't know where you live, but in Scandinavia a lot of major carriers are IPv6 only on their cellular networks, and runs NAT64 to access the ones that haven't keeped up with progress yet.

    Thanked by 2Erisa Pixels
  • I don't think ipv6 will ever be used widely.
    It has too much issues :
    -it is not human compliant, no way you can remember a full ipv6
    -it makes it hard to use for sysadmins
    -there are really enough ipv4 available, it is just that some dudes have been assigned entire /8 to do nothing with it. Legacy ressource holders are more than 50% of total ipv4 allocation and they maybe need / use 0.01% of them.

    The politics at RIPE and other registries is to let the price of ipv4 increase with the hope that people deploy v6 (and it also makes them filthy rich)
    [ Have you seen the ripe waiting list ? more thant 400 LIR have been opened in the last weeks in order to get a /24. That is ~1.000.000 € of membership fees. ]

    I am convinced that ipv8 or some other sort of "ipv4+ / ipv4 alternative" will be deployed and used before ipv6 replaces ipv4.
    It's been 20 years, no one used it without being really pushed to, it's a failure.

  • RickBakkrRickBakkr Member, Patron Provider, LIR
    edited December 2021

    @netswitch said: -there are really enough ipv4 available, it is just that some dudes have been assigned entire /8 to do nothing with it. Legacy ressource holders are more than 50% of total ipv4 allocation and they maybe need / use 0.01% of them.

    Convince them to give it back. They might only surrender when they get a large sum of cash...

    @netswitch said: The politics at RIPE and other registries is to let the price of ipv4 increase with the hope that people deploy v6 (and it also makes them filthy rich)
    [ Have you seen the ripe waiting list ? more thant 400 LIR have been opened in the last weeks in order to get a /24. That is ~1.000.000 € of membership fees. ]

    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2021-December/thread.html

    You might find above discussion an interesting read... I think it's bad to halt startups by limiting them to 1x /24, which will ultimately limit their potential growth.

    @netswitch said: I am convinced that ipv8 or some other sort of "ipv4+ / ipv4 alternative" will be deployed and used before ipv6 replaces ipv4.

    Except, won't that new 'standard' just become yet another standard which is not too widely deployed? We would turn out with three (or more) parallel used standards, which won't work.

    Thanked by 1yoursunny
  • @netswitch said:
    I don't think ipv6 will ever be used widely.
    It has too much issues :
    -it is not human compliant, no way you can remember a full ipv6
    -it makes it hard to use for sysadmins

    That's what domain names are used for.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    @rcy026 said:

    @inetzero said:

    Will IPv4 be phased out? Don't really think so, since there's isn't any reason to do this, especially since it's going to be difficult phasing out legacy protocols and cellular connections [remember, 3/4G is still IPv4 only (you could use CGNAT, but why complicate it), not sure about 5G though]

    I don't know where you live, but in Scandinavia a lot of major carriers are IPv6 only on their cellular networks, and runs NAT64 to access the ones that haven't keeped up with progress yet.

    Accepted - but that isn't the issue because very, very few (usually idiots) run public services like e.g. a web server on their mobiles.

    @RickBakkr said:

    @netswitch said: -there are really enough ipv4 available, it is just that some dudes have been assigned entire /8 to do nothing with it. Legacy ressource holders are more than 50% of total ipv4 allocation and they maybe need / use 0.01% of them.

    Convince them to give it back. They might only surrender when they get a large sum of cash...

    No, force everyone with more than a /26 to provide solid and verifiable need and force everyone without solid and verifiable need to shrink their allocation to solid and verifiable need.
    This includes all kinds of educational educations wrt. their role as de facto ISP towards their students.
    This also includes any and all federal, state, county, and local agencies and offices.
    Also force everyone to use NAT and private ranges for any device service that isn't public.
    As for the military they can get 1 IP per million inhabitants. For their (supposedly massive) internal use they are free to use IPv6.

    So far for basics. Also offer paid IP at a not too cheap but reasonable rental fee that increases with the amount of IPs. Example: $10/yr for less than /28, $20/yr for /28 to /24 and $50 beyond /24.

    Finally put in place a binding rule according to which IP address space is to be handed out in proportion to population and tech-level of regions/countries.China for example being at about the same tech level as the USA but having >4 times the population gets >4 times the address space the USA gets (and about 2.5 times of EU-rope's space).

    TL;DR provide only the IPs really and reasonably needed. Additional IP must be purchased.

    Do the above and there will be enough IPs - to a reasonable degree - for decades. Then use that time to have reasonable professionals design the "next IP"

    @netswitch said: I am convinced that ipv8 or some other sort of "ipv4+ / ipv4 alternative" will be deployed and used before ipv6 replaces ipv4.

    Except, won't that new 'standard' just become yet another standard which is not too widely deployed? We would turn out with three (or more) parallel used standards, which won't work.

    Good question. It would be helpful to define a frame like in particular "MUST be compatible with IP4" and "must not redefine any mechanisms (like e.g. NAT or DHCP) but only and simply extend address range".
    In return such a sensible scheme would be quickly accepted and picked up/become an actually used standard.

    Thanked by 1mike1s
  • RickBakkrRickBakkr Member, Patron Provider, LIR

    @jsg said: No, force everyone with more than a /26 to provide solid and verifiable need and force everyone without solid and verifiable need to shrink their allocation to solid and verifiable need.

    You know one can not advertise longer than a /24 prefix right? Thus, there'd be a unjustifyable need for a /24 when wanting to be upstream provider-independant or require own policies in terms of routing per se.

    @jsg said: This includes all kinds of educational educations wrt. their role as de facto ISP towards their students.
    This also includes any and all federal, state, county, and local agencies and offices.
    Also force everyone to use NAT and private ranges for any device service that isn't public.
    As for the military they can get 1 IP per million inhabitants. For their (supposedly massive) internal use they are free to use IPv6.

    Said institutions hold LEGACY, pre-RIR, space. Thus, not a single RIR can put such pressure, nor will IANA as the legacy agreements probably do not hold a clause to justify such action.

  • @jsg said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @inetzero said:

    Will IPv4 be phased out? Don't really think so, since there's isn't any reason to do this, especially since it's going to be difficult phasing out legacy protocols and cellular connections [remember, 3/4G is still IPv4 only (you could use CGNAT, but why complicate it), not sure about 5G though]

    I don't know where you live, but in Scandinavia a lot of major carriers are IPv6 only on their cellular networks, and runs NAT64 to access the ones that haven't keeped up with progress yet.

    Accepted - but that isn't the issue because very, very few (usually idiots) run public services like e.g. a web server on their mobiles.

    True, but it's a good start. Once all the clients run IPv6 then even the idiots running the servers might do the switch. :wink:

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited December 2021

    @RickBakkr said:

    @jsg said: No, force everyone with more than a /26 to provide solid and verifiable need and force everyone without solid and verifiable need to shrink their allocation to solid and verifiable need.

    You know one can not advertise longer than a /24 prefix right?

    Yes, I know and you are right - but while you talk about inter-provider traffic I talked about intra- provider traffic, typically ISPs, and I've seen plenty clients with /29 allocated by their ISP.

    @jsg said: This includes all kinds of educational educations wrt. their role as de facto ISP towards their students.
    This also includes any and all federal, state, county, and local agencies and offices.
    Also force everyone to use NAT and private ranges for any device service that isn't public.
    As for the military they can get 1 IP per million inhabitants. For their (supposedly massive) internal use they are free to use IPv6.

    Said institutions hold LEGACY, pre-RIR, space. Thus, not a single RIR can put such pressure, nor will IANA as the legacy agreements probably do not hold a clause to justify such action.

    Uhum. But I do not care - at all - about keeping the careless committee people happy whi created the problem in the first place by e.g. wasting /16s on pretty much every high-school that cared to ask. Those people have proven their incompetence, that's why this discussion came and comes to be.

    Here's an example of what I mean: population of Asia 4.65 bln, Africa 1.37 bln, Europe 0.74 bln, Latin America 0.65 bln, North America 0.37 bln, and Australia & Oceania 0.04 bln.

    Although North America is just about 5% of the worlds population the USA has by far the most IP4 addresses per 1000 inhabitants. In fact they have 1000 times more IPs/1000 people than some countries.

    If thinking about a more fair distribution one can't but notice that for a start over 10% of the total address space is generously wasted; over half a billion IPs are reserved and I'm not talking about 10/8 and the like. That insanity leaves us with about 3.7 bln IPs which equates to about half an IP per person on this planet - of which the USA alone took about 1 billion (I'm generous here, actually it's over 1/3rd of all IPs for themselves).

    Take away all but about 175 mln IPs from the USA plus recover 325 mln IPs out of the reserved ranges (still leaving about 250 mln) ... et voilà 1.5 billion more IPs available.

    "But the Americans invented the internet and shared it with us" you say? Largely true, and I thank them, honestly, I mean it.
    But that argument carries virtually zero weight because if they hadn't shared the internet, we would have come up with our own "rest of world" internet and chances are that it wouldn't be worse (to put it very diplomatically). And anyway, if the USA took the internet away us tomorrow morning their own corporate giants would fight ... or brutally shrink. 5% against 95% isn't exactly a winning ticket. What actually was the winning ticket was sharing the internet, albeit extremely unfairly and greedily.

    TL;DR There is no lack of IP4 addresses that wasn't artificially (and idiotically) self-inflicted. We could easily have 1.5 bln more IP4s if the committees were dethroned and filled with competent people and if the USA didn't hold on to a ridiculously large share.
    Which btw highly likely also explains why the corporate giants are trying to push IPv6; they know the situation and understand that they need everyone everywhere, incl. in what Americans call "rest of world" and what I call "95% of the world" plenty IPs for people and companies. They exist and grew because the Americans shared their invention.

    @rcy026 said:

    @jsg said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @inetzero said:

    Will IPv4 be phased out? Don't really think so, since there's isn't any reason to do this, especially since it's going to be difficult phasing out legacy protocols and cellular connections [remember, 3/4G is still IPv4 only (you could use CGNAT, but why complicate it), not sure about 5G though]

    I don't know where you live, but in Scandinavia a lot of major carriers are IPv6 only on their cellular networks, and runs NAT64 to access the ones that haven't keeped up with progress yet.

    Accepted - but that isn't the issue because very, very few (usually idiots) run public services like e.g. a web server on their mobiles.

    True, but it's a good start. Once all the clients run IPv6 then even the idiots running the servers might do the switch. :wink:

    FWIW I have no problem whatsoever with mobile devices getting only IPv6. Reason: Those users (well the overwhelming majority) are indeed users who don't care as long as they click on some icons. And yes, I'd accept an IPv6 for my (very few and rather rarely used anyway) mobile devices too.

Sign In or Register to comment.