Hacker News Reader

Comment by commandersaki | Hacker News Reader

And so we must rely on v4 addresses to cater for v4 only connected hosts. This is the point the article is trying to make - for a transition to actually happen there needs to be interoperability between v4 and v6, that is v4-only clients need to talk to v6-only servers, and v6-only servers need to talk to v4-only clients. That is a fundamental requirement for a transition plan which provides a straight-forward path from v4 to v6.

View on HN

Which is dual-stack with a grandual phaseout of v4. We already pay for the bloat of the v4 routing tables, but nobody can even think of phasing them out until stuff actually starts using v6. But nobody wants to deploy v6 because everyone has this mistaken belief that it’s easier to stretch v4 out with more hacks to preserve addresses.

v4 only hosts are rarer than you would think. ISPs have been dual stacking for a while.

The Internet is mostly v4-only. What do you mean?

Do you have anything to back that up? I work in the Telco industry. The vast majority of ISPs and carriers both provide dual stacking at least, with some carriers making as much of their network v6 only.

Really the only thing that is largely stuck on v4 is large (and poorly maintained) corporate networks and cloud providers.

As I stated earlier v4 only means a network connected to the Internet via v4 without connectivity to v6.

This is the majority of networks on the Internet. Otherwise we’d see adoption greater than 20% or whatever it is.

My cloud servers from major players all have v6 address attached on launch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com