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
Aha, ok. got it.
So if in my country there are 5% of random tech users, we must change and adapt the entire technology and the rest of 95% to fit the 5%. This is solid metal logic here.
Let me guess, you are also a fan of gentoo, kernel 6.4, download the bleeding edge versions of software? Cmon man, let's bring technology forward, be the early adopters.
So the argument I see mostly given for not going IPv6 is “Too hard to implement as v4 is already everywhere and it’s enough” but this is simply not true. The price of v4 adresses will keep rising due to increased usage as more and more devices come online that need it, now there are hacky work arounds like NAT but those are just that, hacky workarounds. Saying it’s too hard to implement is saying “Too much tech debt so should never be changed” even if changing it would overall be a net benefit.
I have my own ASN recently acquired with a v6 block and I agree, having v4 adresses is nice simply because it just works more but that isn’t a problem with ipv6 that’s mostly a problem with service providers not willing to give it a serious shot. It’s insane that providers like GitHub who are supposed to be oriented towards developers haven’t brought there infrastructure to be v6 capable.
And also I agree with the other points, the user doesn’t give a sh*t whether there using v4 or v6, they want there websites to load they don’t care what tech is below that. But that doesn’t mean v6 shouldn’t be implemented or it’s a bad standard, but it’s simply that v4 has an insane amount of tech debt.(For Christ sake there are modern routers like the Zenwifi from ASUS which was released a few years ago and it doesn’t have v6). But this doesn’t mean we should abandon v6 or not try to implement it, it means we should put more effort into implementing it.
The trouble with these 'debates' is that it very quickly degenerates into one side screaming that IPv6 is a garbage failed project (and that by extension anyone who uses it is both delusional and/or lying), while the other side screams that IPv4 is dead (and that by extension anyone not immediately ditching their 'legacy' stack is a terminal luddite).
The truth is this; IPv6 basically works, as long as your providers support it properly. That support is spotty, but easy enough to find and when it works, it works as well and as easily as IPv4.
It's not going to replace IPv4, so if you don't like / understand / trust IPv6 then stick to what you know. It'll be fine (although you might starting paying more for the privilege).
Writing blog posts declaring the death of something that half the internet uses every day, however, just makes you look daft.
So does an electric car, crypto-currency, zero-trust P2P protocols, post quantum mathematics, and so on. But unless everyone else, or at least 50%, are on the same page, there is no reason to jump first and invest your time to advertise it. Let the majority do their own adaptations at their own pace. Convert a large network to IPv6 dual-stack, write a case study, write about pros and cons, then you can say something about "better future". Without such evidence, it's all words in the air.
It's not as esoteric as you're striving to make it sound. I'm sat here on an IPv6 machine, connected to my IPv6 ISP; my entire interaction with this place is IPv6 (well, as far as Cloudflare; no clue how it travels after that).
There has been literally zero configuration from my point of view to achieve this. I haven't had to learn the arcane rituals of IPv6-worship. I just plug my modern OS into my modern router and ... it works.
Quit trying to make it sound like trying to get dial-up working on Windows 3.
All the big players have invested large amounts of money in buying IPv4 addresses. The day IPv6 could be used in general as a replacement for IPv4, the IPv4 prices would drop instantly, and all the big players would lose their investment.
Those who bought early at low prices have written up the value and thus increased the equity. If the equity drops, the stock price drop.
I think the growth of the usefulness of IPv6 will be a slow process for that same reason. There is simply too much money involved.
In the US:
One of my ISPs, T-Mobile, relies entirely on NAT.
The other ISP, Cox, gives both IPv4 and IPv6 natively. Probably half of the content I browse on the internet is served via IPv6. Cox is very old school, too… it’s no Google Fiber.
In @jsg defense I do proxy all of my websites through CloudFlare, but I have next to zero risk of being de-platformed due to my content being fully within CF ToS. I would do this with or without IPv6.
Of course... it's a transitory state where half of the world is arguing IPv6 is wrong and half is arguing IPv4 is already dead.
Give it another 25-50 years, people usually call everything new stupid until they get familiar with it.
Right now a ARIN /24 costs about ~$10,000 to buy, when a /24 costs $20,000... will that still be worth it when the IPv6 equivalent is practically free?
If your ISP gives you Google captchas on their CGNAT you have a shitty ISP that’s used for abuse.
I’ve had IPv4 CGNAT my whole life, and have never ever had issues with captcha.
You use a shitty ISP and you cannot blame the adress protocol for that.
When there are too many users behind single IP address many sites start providing captchas. And due to there are many users, captchas are never single click. I have ordered dedicated IP address and the issue was solved.
Thus I disagree with you - in case of shitty ISP entire ASN will be blacklisted.
If your ISP does CGNAT they are a shitty ISP in general.
You have been very wrong multiple times in this thread and this is just another one of them.
There’s no way Google is using a single factor like that, CGNAT is very popular, ISPs put a lot of users on the same IP.
Same goes for Cloudflare Warp for example.
You start getting captchas when there’s a large portion of shit compared to not shit.
As I’ve told you, I’ve been behind CGNAT for my whole life and have never had issues like that. Your point is moot.
Well yes, but in here that’s the vast majority.
If that wasn't the case I wouldn't experienced what I have said. Sad to see you are too stubborn.
I didn't said either that amount of the requests is the only factor. You are lucky if NAT not interferes with your surfing.
Ok, and so I’ve been lucky my whole life and basically everyone on a mobile network is too
Here In Egypt, ADSL providers serve a dynamic dedicated IPv4 per line. Their first-line support has no idea what an IPv4 is when I ask about it (lol?).
but noticed since last year, ADSL providers don't provide static IPs anymore. hopefully, they don't experience IPv4 scarcity.
4G providers have always been on CGNAT.
I'm curious, how much an /24 used to cost 5 years ago?
First, thanks to all except to a single user for staying more or less civilized and on topic.
That's not limited to your country ...
Uhm, nope. I get your point but it's - as so often is the case nowadays - not about 50/50. Not counting those who like everything, anything new for being new but only IPv6 fans who at least have a basic understanding, it's more like 3 (rather loud) % pro IPv6 vs. 97% "pro" IP4 (incl. "I don't care. If it works it's fine") and 15% pro IP4 (for diverse reasons)
That is not the issue. Most criticism of IPv6 is not based on "it's new so let's reject it" but on at least half-way reasonable arguments.
Plus, you can bet that corporations (as opposed to John, Jack, and Jill users) do look closely at the matter. It's just that (see my earlier post) it doesn't make a lot of sense for many enterprises.
(a) do you have a guarantee that IPv6 will stay free forever?
(b) what I'm expecting is more shifting and changing things within the IP4 universe. Just one (of many) example: ISPs might increasingly allocate fewer ports to basic/standard DSL and mobile accounts and somewhat more to business accounts. In other words, they'll pack their NATS denser - plus - I'm expecting ISPs to sell additional ports. This (a) breaks the price down ("you can get 10 more ports for $0.30" sounds way better than "sorry, you'll have to pay (e.g.) $2 more per month", and (b) introduces a new element to customers ("I don't surf that intensely anyway" or "hmm, Surfing intensely is worth a nickel or two to me") ... plus the usual "classing" to which customers are used anyway ("The guy upstairs has *double ports!").
Anyway, I think the "it's free" (or not) point carries less weight than many seem to think. It might carry some weight though if and when ISP lower their prices with IPv6 (which is unlikely to happen because they need to recover their expenses which btw is not just equipment).
And then there is of course also still the elephant in the room: organizations (particularly in your country, sorry) holding hundreds of millions of IP4s without really needing them.
I have to ask what those "half-way reasonable arguments" are, because so far all I've got is that ISPs are garbage and there's "nothing wrong with CGNAT".
Anything worth being accessible over IPv6, will always be available over IPv4. I don't think "IPv6 only" will ever be a "thing" outside some hobby VMs. You won't see any major site, project, app, whatever be only available over IPv6.
That is definitely true for now; I wouldn't want to predict what the state of play will be in 10-15 years time though.
Declaring things will "always" be available over IPv4 is a bit like saying you will "always" be able to send email via UUCP.
I thought you were older :P
So if you experience this same issue within the next few months your views will change?
What's worth is very random. I am pretty sure you use or visit some webpages which won't fall under this definition therefore may not be always available over IPv4.
@rm_ your presence is required here. I know you use IPv6 since the Dark Ages. What's your +/- on that topic?
--
Just meant that major sites that are globally used (Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, PornHub or things like Cloudflare, Steam, etc) are unlikely to be giving up their IPv4 space. I'd imagine stuff like that will always be available over IPv4 whether it's tomorrow or a decade or more from now. Stuff like that accounts for the majority of all global web traffic. Over time we'll see more of that traffic passed over IPv6 but I just can't imagine a scenario where they just disable IPv4 access all together.
Sure, there may be some smaller sites and projects that become IPv6 only over time but I'd imagine that those would be extreme niche sites from people who are doing IPv6 only out of some form of protest or because IPv4 is unavailable to them for some reason, NAT or otherwise.
@Mumbly I think its really reasonable to say that no one has a real incentive to switch to IPv6 so it takes a super long time if we will ever get there in the first place. ISP's can just use CGNAT and no big website will disable IPv4 to force ISP's to implement v6.
That's certainly true, until there's some sort of incentive to kill IPv4 support. Dual stacking is trivial and there's no up-side to turning it off.
I imagine at some point, somebody in Apache / nginx / next decades webserver will deprecate IPv4 support and it'll start to sunset then but that's not happening any time soon.
(this is why "IPv6 sucks!" threads are so pointless; the two technologies are happy to coexist so why do people get so bent out of shape wanting to attack the flavour they don't personally prefer?)
Never is a very long time.
Older companines hoarded so many IPv4 addresses that there's really no incentive to switch to the IPv6 right now but on the other hand IPv4s are getting more and more expensive which put every new company/ISP into disadvantageous position.
I believe that sooner or later things will become too unbearable to keep it that way.
I hope so, but that goes for a lot more than just IPv4/IPv6.
If anyone is interested in pricing, IPXO has a nice post about it:
https://www.ipxo.com/blog/ipv4-price-history/
as long as dev's add ipv6 support to there tool i think that it will be implemented more, everything u do with ipv4 you can do with ipv6 but there are usually some caveats about using ipv6 with the same tools.
It's a bit of a catch 22. It's hard to catch all the weird IPV6 bugs that'll come into any software, just because there might not be a lot of people using it. If those IPV6 bugs cause issues with IPV4, then people will just disable V6 and call it a day.
There was some big upgrade/change that happened with Azure AD/O365 last year I think and it involved IPV6. Most MSP's simply force disabled IPV6 on their customers routers to stop potential headaches.
Francisco
im not huge into networking but personally i would scrap ipv6 and develop a new standard similar to ipv4
ipv6 is just a failure man