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
Ultimately, it's not free at all, infact quite steep costs.
Many need upgraded routers (routing table size), additional training (expensive, time consuming), more management needed (time, expensive) and various software upgrades (can be $$$, but also time).
All of that is expensive in actual business.
So, no IPv6 is not free. Infact, it is quite expensive.
and eventually market corrects, these will become available and sold when the prices go high, some of the organizations need influx of cash, or simply don't need them anymore etc etc.
So there's no real exhaustion yet (despite claims to be), there is only exhaustion of "free" IPv4 addresses.
Exactly this, and considering the adoption and on-going costs, puts whole IPv6 support to be questionable at best.
Our guesstimate is that it would maybe add 0.1% of business at best, but it would probably increase costs well more than that, several % in total OpEx + CapEx at the very least. Hard to estimate how slow things would get, all those extra 1 minute here, extra 5 minutes there. Just hard to estimate. If i had to guess, it could be as high as 10-15%, which would result in 15-30% price increase for all customers. For 0.1% of potential new business at best.
Neither is true. Dual stacking is not trivial, and there are definitive upsides to disabling IPv6.
At least for the services we provide.
I am sure given enough effort the upsides for disabling IPv6 could be mitigated, but do we really want to put all that effort down? Nope.
That's normal for any argument where it is emotional choice, not logic based.
No, because with EV you can still use the same roads as ICE cars and go anywhere you want.
Imagine if EV could only use say 3% of the roads available? Or in some cases only 0.5%? Maybe in Los Angeles you could use 75% of the roads tho.
Not so fast, there are too many issues as stated by others too in this thread. Further, we did try, we had to disable IPv6 due to too many issues.
The disconnect seems to be gigantic one.
End users seem to advocate for IPv6 saying it's easy and free, where as i rarely see those who actually work with it to ever advocate for IPv6, quite to the contrary. Most everyone i have spoken with, who actually runs profitable production, seems to be against implementing IPv6 or at the very least had a lot of issues and downsides.
BUT: Should the day ever come when IPv6 - for the vast majority of people - comes down to setting a flag in the OS config, and then have everything just working without any significant hiccups, I will stop to strongly advise clients to avoid IPv6 like the pestilence it (still) is. Kindly note that this includes reasonably priced (about like IP4 stuff) equipment, ISP service, etc. Should it even be cheaper I'll give IPv6 the first '+' point (next to all the '-'s).
On the same boat here with you completely. So many issues, and it tries to break layer boundaries too making shit even more complex.
What an irony too!
so funny
Same here, it was never a deal breaker. Not even the most loud ipv6 zealot avoided our services because of lack of ipv6, and lack of IPv6 only became an issue when he couldn't get another year for well under production cost.
Non-solution. You first need network connectivity to use DNS. You just created a infinite loop: Need DNS for the Address, but need the Address for the DNS.
So now you need local IPv6, DNS server (or 2) IPv6 addresses manually inputted, before, you can use your DNS to resolve for the IPv6 address ...
being handed out in /29 chunks without justification ... exactly the same thing that lead to today's issue, when originally each dialup user got a /24 ...
Actually, that doesn't matter, and yes it kinda is. IPv6 is not backwards compatible, so a lot of stuff breaks.
You need your stuff working, then you can fine tune and do extra things. But first it needs to work.
hmm, and with CPUs too, the 64bit is essentially "just an extension" ... can't help but draw the parallel
You failed to understand the point completely or hierarchy completely.
wow, you really do not understand any of this stuff at all? not the slightest clue?
Adding header options where you can extend few bits, only to be handled by end points (from current perspective), makes for zero changes in between.
Well maybe dual stacking is too hard for you; it works fine for me (at a "server and below" level) and plenty of providers (at the "rack and above" level).
The fact that it's routinely handled by a significant portion of the market suggests it's not as much of a broken mess as you're desperate to paint it as - fine, you don't like it so don't use it. Not sure what you gain by outright lying about it.
As for your "oh I don't like your new standard so I've invented a new one that's perfect" is ... literally the xkcd linked earlier.
That is not zealotry. It only shows that some services, software, ISPs are not IPv6 ready and that is not the fault of IPv6 per se.
In Romania we have a saying "merge si asa" which roughly means "it works that way (too)" i.e. why bother to upgrade, invest, when it is "still" working the old way?
Sure, you have to struggle with NAT, port forwarding, reverse proxies and whatnot, but those are "mature" technologies everyone has been forced into learning how to operate because of IPv4 scarcity, unlike the "immature" and "not ready" IPv6 few people know or want to learn.
There is nothing wrong with IPv6 (well, apart from some nit-picking), the problem is that we invent and leverage more and more "workarounds" to keep IPv4 alive because IPv6 implementation is "not ready" for 2 decades because people are lazy and prefer to spend more on implementing new layers on top of IPv4 like CGNAT, for example, instead of finally taking their service into the 21st century.
Paradoxically, I think that cheapskates like us who are going for IPv6 only (sometimes with NATed IPv4) providers in order to save the cost of an IPv4 will eventually turn the tide and the IPv4 zealots would understand that losing that market share might not be worth it anymore. We are a few years away from the switch, I think.
Yes, and implementing CGNAT is absolutely free in all those chapters (while also making it impossible for the customer to host any internet-facing services).
True, if we ignore the part that says "when the prices go high". I am not ready to pay 3-4 dollars extra on the top of the 10 I pay for each of my fiberlink connections or on top of the 2 I pay for each of my 4-5G links. Of course, in monopoly countries, like US, India, Turkey etc. where big ISPs are making the law (literally) 3-4 extra dollars on top of 100 is peanuts for the rich enough to afford internet connections, but in a free market system, that would not fly.
Also, as the "prices go high" people will start doing some math, "I need a /20, at 10 dollars a piece, that is 40k, maybe it is better to upgrade my router made before 2010 instead". Let alone if they would cost 20 dollars a piece.
While most IPv6 content is available over IPv4 also and people with IPv4 only could take a tunnel, cloudflare etc. option, the costs of doing that would be going up regarding learning curves at least.
It is true there is no exhaustion of IPv4, but that is because we invented ways to keep using them, such as NAT and CGNAT, in reality, if it were for every device to have an IPv4, then we would have finished them in the 90s.
Overall, if we consider the costs of NAT-ing, proxying and related, that cost long passed the costs of introducing IPv6 universally (not only money, but also time lost in setting up port forwarding and the like) and we keep churning new ways of extending the life support of a dead technology at ever increasing costs just in order to avoid the one-time costs of introducing the new technology.
We can 4to6 which is arguably more complicated than 6to4 so, at the end of the day, introducing IPv6 and ditching IPv4 support (or, at most, keeping a gateway for it where customers could proxy through) would create enormous savings and more and more people will see that.
Experience.
What we use, is different than what you use.
Things simply gets broken.
I don't know why you are so angry just because others don't share your experience and opinion.
That disabling users from hosting might be considered a pro in this instance. Imagine if every phone in the world could easily host something? if botnets are now a issue ...
Market corrects itself. prices are not that high currently.
IPs cost now like 45$ a piece, it's still cheaper than put the brakes on the whole operation.
Also, consider this; Who pays for the routers, and all the slowdown (brakes) on network management?
False. There wasn't enough devices in the 90s, or people connected to the internet. Back then we used to give to sill /24 per dialup user i think.
Being conservative with resources should also be a given. (it is not, IPv6 is handed out in /29 without justification)
Ok, IPv4 is dead: Disable it then. You don't need it.
Oh, and supporting all the NAT etc. is fraction of the cost of putting on brakes on your whole netadmin and sysadmin team. Infact, in many instances NAT is actually nearly free (minutes to set up)
Costs more than simple NAT.
From those trying to use 6to4 i hear about constant issues.
You are just yet another who doesn't have to deal with networking in reality, just another end user who thinks it's a flick of a switch.
Work with networking, and you will soon realize this shit ain't free, easy nor fast.
Oh well if we've reached the stage of "oh well you wouldn't understand, you're just a simple user" stage of the debate I guess the thread is well and truly done.
Oh, me soooo surprised! Who would have thought that "I want a /48 - and for free!!!" doesn't pay for all the investment by a provider to go the flaky IPv6 route!
Yep, typical for "IPv6 advocates" (actually rather zealous preachers) to just "not see" costs beyond hardware (the cheapest, of course, which they would not accept as customers ...).
Yep, this. And indeed a very major part of the debates is "yada, yada, now I have to pay for an IP address" lamenting.
Maybe someone (more patient with idiocy than me) should make some helpful suggestions like e.g. that one can share a web server IP - but of course Mr. a-tenner/year is too much! wants personal IP for himself ...
"OpEx"? "CapEx"? - but IPv6 is freeeeeee! /sarcasm off
How dare you to point at the real world?
How dare you arguing with an IPv6 fan, based on nothing more than concrete experience, knowing the real costs and effort needed?!
That's only one part, the other one being egotism and "I want! I want! I want!" (of course for free).
Good point.
No, no! All of those zealots are running major hosting operations or ISPs! They are just so modest to not mention it and to smell like clueless sectarians.
So, the difference is not just, as I have been told here, 4 bytes vs. 16 bytes? (Yep, those sectarians really tell BS like that. They tell me, an experienced developer, about how easy it is to add IPv6 to software, and they tell you, a seasoned hoster, how it's no problem at all, just flipping a switch, to IPv6 enable your operations, ...)
The problem with irony is that some do not even see it when it's blinking in front of their eyes ...
I guess that only extremely few IPv6 fans will actually think about what you said. But I for one. while not surprised am glad that a well know hoster laid things down from his perspective. Thank you for that.
Sorry, but /29 chunks are clearly too small. How can the local bakery or John Doe with his "operations" work with hardly abou 10 ^ 30 IPs? Clearly, we need IPv7 with 512 bit addresses and some funny willy nilly other changes!
Actually, largely yes, but let us not open yet another war front *g
Damn, boy, you're overzealous ...
Why not simply tell us about all the relevant experience? How many years have you professionally worked on IPv6 enabling (halfway serious) software, how many years have you professionally ran an ISP or a hosting operation or a DC fully supporting IPv6?
The differentiator is that they are just mere end users, for them it's always been a mere flick of a button at most.
They have no idea about ARP table caches, ND cache etc.
Maybe someone (more patient with idiocy than me) should make some helpful suggestions like e.g. that one can share a web server IP - but of course Mr. a-tenner/year is too much! wants personal IP for himself ...
Further, they don't realize that IPs costing money means they are not wasted like IPv6 is now (hellou, /29 without justification?), and IPv6 will suffer the same fate eventually as IPv4 ("exhaustion"), since it too is a finite resource, which is now given willy nilly. Everyone wants a /48 or /56 to their little 2$ VM.
Which will eventually lead to a situation where IPv6 no more available, because everyone is now using gazillion times more than they actually need.
But hey, people want their free stuff. Unfortunately, in this real world there is no free lunch.
lol!
There's other words for "everything should be free and just given to us". It has never gone well in the history of humankind.
Yes, Yes of course they are!, they also know better than us who publicly say we work with this stuff. They know the best, because they are so good and apt with this stuff, that they can build a software router out of garbage bin materials in a drunken haze college weekend with their friends, which will be better than anything Juniper, Cisco or Broadcom can make!
They are such geniuses, that they can make DDR2 have lower latency by an order of magnitude than even the most modern CPU L1 cache!
(See our Minidedi thread, that's what it boiled down to ...)
Ofc, it is clearly not enough for anyone!
... i was thinking how ipv4 could similarly have some kind of thing that adds functionality to it, kind of like new functionality. Like update it or something where it is fully backwards compatible, but those who have updated their thingies could also have that new thing with it, without anyone else in between needing to even care about it ...
not sure what's that called ... when you add more to a pre-existing and functioning thing
/sarcasm
Remind me again which side is the zealous preachers?
What I do find interesting is anybody having even a tiny bit of support for IPv6 is immediatley called a zealot. Like if your not in support for IPv6 fine, but having to resort to personal insults just makes the discussion meaningless.
That's a misunderstanding. You were obviously not meant because it was evident that you actually reflected.
But as you seem to feel offended anyway, I apologize to you. (honest, not sarcasm)
I was never insulted, I wasn’t even part of the convo except a few minor messages early on. I am mearly stating that people who seem to be against IPv6 in this conversation call everybody who is for v6 zealots etc. And insulting them personally instead of having an honest productive discussion.
In 2000, there were 407 million users worldwide. That does not include institutions, providers, hosts. I had dedicated line back then and many people in the US had "broadband". Yes, few people had multiple computers to share their connection, but I did share 4 dedicated lines with around 40 ppl iirc in 1999-2000. We counted as 4 users but we were actually ten times that many and we had servers for file sharing and hosting, more devices in the network than users for sure. I am pretty sure the number of connected devices was more than 4 bn worldwide including routers, DSLAMs, dial-up and ISDN on the providers' side many other things. Remember, one organization could have had hundreds of computers and other devices, some of them had /8s (yes, multiple /8s). There were universities, companies such as Microsoft, AT&T, even Ford IIRC.
Which ones? For connection or IPv4? The situation varies by continent and even country. ATM the price here, for a static IPV4 is at least 1 Eur with some providers, others offer only for special B2B contracts. I think that is only for the service, not the IP per se as they give one anyway with the subscription, but Romania has tons of IPv4, atm only one provider grows and all the others are losing customers, there is no wonder the big provider deployed IPv6 everywhere and very few of the others have it even in an "experimental" phase.
I prioritize IPv6 and use it exclusively in most cases. I have IPv6 only VMs in my nodes as I follow the OMOP principle (one machine, one purpose). Setting up a proxy of some kind, regular or reverse, in both directions is something I have already scripted and I have a vm on a KS I tunnel into. I wouldn't have to do this if everyone would have had IPv6 by now. So you lose time and money buying and managing your IPv4 stash and I lose time setting up complicated gateways and proxies because of holdouts like you. At least I don't pay for IPv4, I just use the services which come with one free.
It IS simple NAT. You give people some kind of CGNAT in your DC, voila, done. It would, of course, work only for outgoing connections, but people could buy ports and you make extra money to pay for the time spent setting that up. Sell the vast majority of IPv4 or stop renting them, profit! Nothing stops you offering IPv4 services too, but you could setup a mainly IPv6 service to see how is the demand. I would gladly save one dollar for a 2 dollar box if it comes without IPv4 even if there is no NATed IPv4 (or proxy, gateway, 6to4 etc.)
I think you overestimate the costs with IPv6. For us it was always on since more than a decade and while we used a separate router and only one carrier at the beginning, things improved very fast.
That being said, we still have issues with some providers and incompatibilities. For example, in AMS, the routers we recently bought to replace the failed ones (both, last year) insist on being routed through a /64 at least while Serverius only gives a /127. That should not happen in this day and age and holdouts like you are encouraging that behaviour.
Okay, so I gave an example where it would have made sense to buy a new router at even 1/4 of the current costs. Sooner or later your obsolete routers would need to be scrapped anyway and I don't think you could find one IPv4 only, unless at some garage sale. So, that cost is already nothing because you would have to upgrade routers anyway.
Your admins don't know IPv6 in this day and age? I am 48, how old are they?
Someone who knows their trade in IPv4 can learn IPv6 in a few days if really thick. Surely, not really master it, but enough to get going and start being practical on the job.
Putting the "brakes" on the whole operation because you implement IPv6? What are you running, a nuclear missile silo? Just start with a separate router and DHCPv6. It would deploy itself from there and put the fun and novelty in your admins' life. For me it is always fun to have a challenge, find the problem, design a solution, implement it and iron out the bugs.
This is why we work in IT&C, if your people chose that career because it pays well and they come to work to punch the clock, then you need to review your HR practices.
Never been much of a software developer, so I'll admit that I have no say in that field.
But I did ran an ISP for ~15 years, I've been operating DC's for over 20 years and I've spent the last 10-15 years in the metro network/backbone industry.
Most DC's went dualstack around 10-12 years ago and many metro's are now ipv6 only. Mobile carriers are running ipv6 only so most of he CGNAT is being replaced by 6to4 to be able to reach the parts of the net that is stuck in the past.
But this is in Europe, not the US. I'm sure you guys will catch up eventually.
That didn't address you, but as you answered ...
Of course. A professional knows what is his field and what is not. I expected no less from you (unlike many others).
(a) would you kindly specify "Europe" a bit tighter? Which country/ies have you worked in (for a nontrivial period of time)? One of the reasons I'm asking is that Europa is a quite big place with some more "open to new technology" and some far less so.
(b) We both know that "went dual-stack" can mean a lot of quite different things. I guess we both know instances that are far apart like e.g. some large IP going all in vs. many, many companies running some test routes with IPv6.
And indeed, even complete (or largely) "dual-stack" countries actually run quite little IPv6 on all levels and to the customers. But of course most of the major players like to paint themselves as if they were dual-stack, full-stack ...
No IPv6 at my home, on my mobile or at any of the sites I manage at work. Never have needed to look into it.
I find it useful with more and more IPv6 only cheap VPSes without need to bother with 3rd party tunnelbrokers, 4in6 tunneling, warp ... and similar solutions.
It also give me more flexibility on "max 2 connections per IP" old IRC networks I hang on since the dark ages, especially where I run some additional eggdrop, give bnc to some friend and similar.
Scandinavia, Netherlands and Germany mainly. Many of my customers have presence in a lot of other countries but I cant really say that I have on-site experience in those.
However I would say that Europe as a region is years ahead of the US, no matter what part of Europe you are looking at.
With dual stack I mean ip4 and ipv6 treated with equal importance. Every service should be reachable by both protocols.
>
Well, yes, your statement is largely correct. But, much of that "weight" in favor of ip4 is due to some major players, mainly American ones, still lagging behind when it comes to ipv6 implementation. Github has been mentioned, but that's just one of many.
Here, most major players like to "paint" themselves as being fully ipv6 with ip4 as fallback. As I said, almost every cellphone carrier is ipv6 only over here, and many of the major ISP's are kicking out CGNAT in favor of pure ipv6 networks with 6to4 instead.
Dual stack was the word 10 years ago, not anymore. Carriers around here that still run ip4 in their backbone are considered outdated, ip4 is just what you use the last hop to parts of the net that still hasn't been updated.
The arguments over how IPv6 doesn't work are a bit cringe in 2023. If you don't care about v6 - great, keep doing your thing.
If you do care, then deploy it anywhere you can where it's within your control. I dual stack all the public stuff I can, and most of my internal stuff runs v6-only.
I've also got v6-only load balancers, DNS servers, etc running alongside dual stack boxes - which gives the large number of mobile users on v6-only networks a slightly better experience and I get to scale/spread the load out without using more v4.
The v4-only users connecting don't notice any difference thanks to all of the fantastic work done by OS/app/network engineers.
A lot of ISPs that friends & family use have started to support IPv6 over the last few years, so I've been quietly enabling it on their routers when I get the usual tech support calls and it just works™. My little way of helping to bump up the usage stats since 90% of the normie services being used are v6-capable (google/yt/fb/netflix).
No point getting into dumb arguments with people over internet numbers (and letters). Just focus on things that are within your control, including which providers you spend your money with, and move on with your life. 🫡
Thanks for providing that info.
Now, for the sake of fairness Sandinavia, while being quite modernistic, still is rather insignificant with just a bit over 20 mio. population. The only two of the countries you worked in that carry some weight are Germany (mainly simply due to their > 80 mio. population and geography) and Netherland which, while having not even 20 mio. people, has (in my view anyway) become the internet center of Europe.
That said, all those countries are "the rich North" (of Europe). There are way more countries and people in Europe though, to be more precise a bit less than double the population of the USA.
I take what you said as truthful - but still that's insignificant not only on the global scale but even on the european scale. Basically it boils down to "well, there are some small corners in the world where IPv6 seems to be significant".
We may turn it every which way we like but fact is that, at least for the time being, Europe is but a small light compared to across the Atlantic. We have achieved a few "honorable mentions" like e.g. a few leading and very major IXs, but largely the internet still is pretty much defined from across the ocean.
Or in other words: They use IPv6 largely internally, but the traffic to/from users is largely IP4. Or in yet other words, they largely play IPv6 where it works and is easy - and users don't care and have no saying anyway.
Example "cell phones". Those, at least by the majority, are used like fridges not like computers; one doesn't care about a fridge's tech innards, it just has to work. (Desktop, office, server) computers are a very different story. Similarly one cares very little, if at all, whether carriers run IPv6, IP4, or 46 and a half bit protocol on their backbones and internal networks. And in that scenario IPv6 indeed makes sense (for carriers, etc), just like in the military; those are basically internal networks under full control and authority of a single player or a relatively small group of players, plus of course it saves on cost and allows them to, oh so generously, "free" IP4 ranges (so that their customers or the customers of their customers can generate more revenue ...).
That's dandy but it's largely outside of the question we're discussing here.
What you use internally is of little concern to me, but forget about me and billions of users and companies switching our servers and computers from IP4 to IPv6 just because a few "modernists" accept a brainfart from the IPv6 weirdos instead of rejecting it and laughing those morons out of the room.
My cell phone companies name is ”Hi3G” and even I have gigabit 5G IPv6 unlimited data
Maybe I should start a host using my sim card
That's his answer, his experience, but that does not leave out by default smaller less rich EU countries.
I live a bit more eastern in a smaller and not so rich EU country which is right now sadly completely flooded with water and where's IPv6 situation pretty much the same same - every ISP (and there's plenty of them) offers IPv6 since ... I don't even remember when.
My home internet has native /56 and my cellphone carrier assign me IP from dedicated /64 space.
I found example from 2013(!). It include local ISPs, media companies, national TV, gov agencies, and so on ...
First column says IPv6 is implemented
Second column says they are rolling it out (and was mostly implemented years ago)
Third column says "soon TM" (unlike colocrossing most of those actually implemented it by
now)
Forth column says "no info or it's not planned"
Have on your mind that this is from 10 years ago.
Sure, I didn't say that nobody has implemented IPv6. I'll even be nice and not ask how many ISPs are actually available throughout your country.
That said, don't get me wrong, but what you showed is that there are some less rich insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) Finland-like countries too.
Sorry, but as long as IPv6 isn't generally and cheaply (about like IP4) available in, let's be nice and say 2/3rds of the world (and at least 85% in the major civilized not poor countries) IPv6 is not the standard.
The simple fact is that IPv6 was said to replace IP4 "very soon (TM)" since over 20 years - and it did not. And there are good reasons for that.
Make a simple test:
Turn off all IPv6 ... and some modernist (or wannabe) carriers, ISP, hosters will make some noise as well as some fans.
Turn off all IP4 ... and the world will pretty much stand still.
P.S. I hope that your country and its people get away halfway intact and can quickly recover from the flood damage.
Feel free to ask, although you will most likely use some irrelevant random argument (like you did in post above) or excuse when you will get the answer.
Or let me help you, I can have around 8 - 10 different providers to my home, 4 or 5 of them (telekom, t2, telemach, A1...) with their own infrastructure. Nothing special indeed, although still better than many our American friends can say.
But I am pretty sure that things will improve also for them. With connectivity options and IPv6.
But yes, you don't need to act like a fanatical asshole in fight with everyone who don't agree with you through this whole thread. It's hard to have some serious discussion with you as it seems like you can't cope well with other people's argument.
Congrats, seriously. I'm living in a 1+ mio large city and we do not have so many actually available and halfway serious (dsl 25+ Mb or fiber) ISPs here.
Whatever makes you feel that way ...
If I really were such an a##hole I certainly wouldn't have wished you and you country's people a speedy recovery from the floods. Whatever LET, as far as I know, is not a competition of who's the nicest person (translation: I couldn't care less about whether you like me or not. If anything I hope for you that your perception is only rarely that bent)
Have a nice day