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.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
A few years ago.
In Europe most mobile carriers are already running ipv6 only networks, but since people does not give a shit as long as youtube and tiktok works on their cellphone nobody even noticed.
I think the suggestion that hardware design is the reason we're not 100% IPv6 is ridiculous.
The only reason behind it is there is no major incentive to do so for many consumer ISPs. In the UK, Virgin Media still hasn't rolled it out because they have enough IPv4 for now and to change to IPv6 would mean a lot of work that they simply don't want to have to do.
All it would take for the tide to change would a large player deciding to kill off IPv4 in some way. (It's unlikely to happen, nor am I suggesting anyone should do it) - but if someone like Wikimedia or Google decided to announce they were killing IPv4 support, you'd see most companies adopt it on consumer connections within a matter of months.
A large chunk of ISPs are supporting IPv6 now and it's very painless when actually implemented. Starlink has support for it (as do pretty much all my 5G/4G lines) and I never notice which protocol I'm on. And for 98% of consumers, they don't give a damn what their IP is, as long as they can watch Netflix.
I think we need to be like > 98% connected on v6 to push it, maybe even 99%. CEO's will simply get canned if they're willing to lose > 2% instead of the cost of buying an IP block.
My bet is we start seeing as small as /27's in the DFZ in the next 5 years which will hold over a lot of corporations, especially with everything just being HTTP and can be load balanced/reverse proxied.
Francisco
meanwhile, cloudfront is not fully ipv6 compatible. duhh
Only by completely eliminating IPv4 can we truly achieve the popularity of IPv6.
IPV6 will set you free.
Francisco
Not in Romania, here the opposite is valid, CGNAT all the way, most ISPs don't have it at all, even. Yes, digi is taking over everything gradually eliminating the IPv4 only competition so I guess they have enough IPv4, maybe even selling...
The hardware issue is real, though, I have some routers I am unable to flash with DD-WRT or similar and they have issues with IPv6. I mean it randomly drops and one is refusing to take IPv6 at all, even as it used to work a couple of years ago.
I suspect digi made some changes behind the scenes but they refuse to acknowledge any issues on their side.
I am forced to run a vm instance of a debian router ad interim, at least until I manage to find the settings that would always work with digi.
I'm confused. Are you V6 native at least? Or are they just doing CGNAT w/ no v6?
Francisco
The dream of forcing people to IPv6 due to exhaustion of IPv4 was never realized due to NAT becoming so common. Since IPv6 provided no backwards compatibility the choice ended up between IPv4 or dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 which the latter lost. In Ottawa, Canada Summer 2023 I can order 8 Gbs residential fiber from Bell and guess what? It lacks IPv6 support.
Digi is, I use Digi but my plastic routers have issues with IPv6, I had to setup a vm to do the routing, also thinking about the future upgrade to 10 Gbps, I won't be using a plastic router then, just some old box with 10G NICs, I was speaking of other providers, more than half don't use IPv6 at all for residential customers, not mobile either.
As I was saying, since Digi takes customers away from all the rest, they probably have many IPv4 in reserve, so...
So what do those ISP's do? CGNAT w/o v6? or just public V4 IP's?
Francisco
Both, more and more CGNAT as I can see. It started pretty recently but the damn thing spreads.
I figure they'll CGNAT everyone they can and then maybe include an IP in the top plans and claim it's for business/gamers.
That's what I figure they'll do here in the US. In Canada they don't have enough people to burn up all the IP's that the big 3 have anyway, but given Rogers now owns Shaw, I can totally see them CGNAT'ing just to be fuckers.
Francisco
I am not sure, it is not permanent. I have had people calling me because they could no longer see their cameras remotely, so I went to check the internet (many people have cameras as this is a resort and the houses are rarely in use).
The first time I scratched my head until I saw the WAN IP (I didn't bother to check it before) and saw it being in the CGNAT range. It was only one ISP a couple of months ago, now another.
Still, this happens rarely, most of the time they have public IPv4s, maybe it is a safety measure in case they are running out of routable IPs in the pool. A router restart usually solves the issue.
It is compatible.
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.2.0?topic=addresses-ipv4-mapped-ipv6
My main arguments were/are, summarized
=> IPv6 is expensive, cumbersome and impractical - and not needed.
And, shock and awe, not counting misguided large corporation IPv6 fans, uptake and acceptance is utterly insignificant.
For the sake of fairness: 128 bits is just one but a major reason for very slow and low uptake. There are other reasons too, e.g. weird "quickly shot from the hip" changes like in DHCP. And of bloody course confronting admins and users with "oh, it's basically a completely new and different game, just forget most of what you've learned and are used to" doesn't exactly enhance acceptance, when "you'll need new routers, etc." is bad - and costly - enough news.
As for AWS I was in between a bit shocked and grinning when I read the news. But then, after thinking for some seconds, everything cooled down. (a) Amazon (like pretty much every large corp) turns something into a profit source? Shock, shock, who would have thought that! (/sarcasm). (b) we all pay for everything that isn't blatantly obviously free - and you bet, the day will come when you'll have to pay in one way or another for the air you breathe. So, if there is something surprising in the AWS news then it's the fact that they took so long to come to charge for IPs. (c) If I want to run my own server with "my own" public IP then I have to pay for the hardware, possibly software, electricity, colocation/housing ... and the IP - so what, that's life.
2 'BTWs':
A big 'Thank You!' to many providers here who do their best to offer (relatively) cheap IPs with their servers/VMs.
And @raindog308 (and @jbiloh) : This is, or at least was, a technical forum about diverse aspects of hosting. I get it, a war, any war (incl. plenty started by your country), is ugly. I also get that most people sadly fall for the western regime and media propaganda. But do you really think that it's wise, let alone helpful, for a LET admin to obviously show blatant bias towards one party and to basically carry their flag?
I'm pro-Russia, no secret, but I, unlike some, tried hard to stay focused on hosting and technology, i.e. what LET was/(is?) all about. Since quite some time now I'm quite absent here because when I log in once a week or so I always see the Russia-hater thread on the front page ... and log out again. Politics. let alone hatred, is not what I'm here for.
The war will be won by this or that country. But how LET evolves or devolves is up to us and particularly to you, the admins. How much animosity has been and still is created by allowing LET to turn into a quite political/politicized community is another issue, and a potentially painful one.
I'm not really sure that it's not too late but there is always hope. LET admins and mods strictly keeping out and neutral would probably be a positive step towards healing the damage that has been done.