IPv6 will never happen without someone forcing hands of big corps and ISPs to switch to Ipv6.
Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.
Imagine all social media and streaming services, disable ipv4 within a month. These are not critical services but still will force ISPs to make the switch.
How are those two things related?
1. There are a ton of owners sitting on inefficiently used IP space.
Any company (not doing cloud hosting or network transit) that's holding a /8 is almost certainly using it very inefficiently, but an owner like Apple will never feel financial pressure to optimize or sell their /8. However, an owner like the university I went to (with a /16 network currently worth $3 million) will eventually face internal pressure to sell that network when the value rises to say $50 million.
As another example, Yahoo is currently announcing subnets containing 4.3 million IPv4 addresses, which is worth $193.5mm at auction. If the price of IPv4 addresses increased by say 10x, their IPv4 space would probably comprise the bulk of the company's value.
2. Owners will need to adopt IPv6 in order to realize these financial gains.
In order to sell a significant portion of their IPv4 space, an owner will have to compact their IPv4 usage into a much smaller space and migrate everything else to IPv6. This will be a huge undertaking for a lot of these places, but at some point it's worth it. By doing that, IPv6 adoption increases.
There is the potential for a feedback loop to be created where demand for IPv4 drops and the prices decline and so fewer conversions are done, but I tend to believe that IPv4 pricing will remain inelastic.
So basically the invisible hand of the market may guide us to IPv6, but I highly highly doubt we will have seen the last of IPv4 even decades from now.
...or the opposite: large cloud providers own a lot of valuable IPv4 space. They might want to increase the value of their investment.
Encouraging switching to pure-IPv6 connectivity would be a big loss for them.
This includes AWS, btw. You effectively get a public IPv4 with your instance, regardless of your actual needs. It actually increases your costs to get cloud instances that don't do that.
That is still a problem for sure, but I thinking of places doing things like giving a printer its own subnet just because they have no incentive to be efficient.
Found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75h4gm7t1oI
I just installed a new FTTH ISP at home and learned the hard way what CG-NAT is, after years of having my own public IP with my previous ISP.
I pay about $180/month for a “business internet” cable line. 300 megabits down, 25 up. I also “know a guy” at the ISP who made sure the routing wasn’t going to be an issue.
This is super interesting! I didn't know this was even possible before I started looking into it.
[1]https://superuser.com/questions/323801/how-can-i-own-an-ip-a...
There are also cloud providers, like Vultr, that will allow you to do BGP with them. You could then get a network block routed to a VPS, then tunnel it out or whatever.
With a routeable IP on every computer, no one would be a second class (consume-only) user of the Internet.
So practically a globally addressable IP or not makes no impact on ability to be routable publicly
I maybe biased, I grew up in the 90's so I dont' really know how it was before, I do hear people reminisce about days before eternal September and bb groups and the good old 80's so perhaps it is always been a downward gradient as more and more people came online.
facebook.com has IPv6 address 2a03:2880:f119:8083:face:b00c:0:25de
instagram.com has IPv6 address 2406:da00:ff00::23ae:4dc1
snapchat.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:4802:36::15
netflix.com has IPv6 address 2600:1f14:62a:de82:822d:a423:9e4c:da8d
youtube.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:4006:810::200e
github.com has no AAAA record
And the chart in that blog shows the dent we made.
This guide doesn't even mention AAAA records: https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/dns/dns-records/
API examples are ipv4 unless the option takes ipv6 only: https://api.cloudflare.com/#dns-records-for-a-zone-update-dn...
Your terraform examples use ipv4 only: https://registry.terraform.io/providers/cloudflare/cloudflar... https://registry.terraform.io/providers/cloudflare/cloudflar...
And many others.
In other words, I expect steering people to do ipv6, then maybe ipv4 as well rather than the opposite would give the internet as a whole another big jump in ipv6 usage.
Let’s take any sort of CDN out of the equation for simplicity. Can I use Cloudflare DNS for the service, such that anyone using ipv6 will connect directly to my service, of course— but can CF do some magic ipv4->ipv6 translation/bridge sort of thing, so that someone on ipv4-only will also be able to connect to my ipv6-only service?
I’d imagine the answer is hopefully yes and perhaps this is trivial stuff these days, but anyway I’m thinking of setting up a blog and might go ipv6 only with it..
Typically, both the A and AAAA records point to the same Cloudflare proxy, because serving IPv4 and IPv6 via different infrastructure requires a lot of care to avoid subtle brokenness.
Of course, it is up to the client, then, to decide which address to use. Not all clients default to v6 even if it is available.
Meanwhile on the user side support has tripled from about 11% in 2016 to 33% recently [3].
I guess when you run a scalable web service, you need comparatively few publicly available ip addresses, and everyone has ipv4 anyways, while when you run an ISP, you need way more ip addresses. So the problem is way more pronounced for ISPs than the service providers. I guess the number of deployments with carrier grade NAT without ipv6 support is quite low.
[0]: http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20180826104925/http://www.delong....
[2]: http://web.archive.org/web/20161019011050/http://www.delong....
I am no longer so young and naive. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that such a move by Google or the other tech giants would not be made out of benevolence, but because by doing so, somehow, would net them yet greater control over the flow of information across the world. Whether out of an authoritarian desire architect society the right way this time, or chasing their profit margin as far down the asymptote as they can measure, the resultant 1st through Nth order effects would probably be the same for the rest of us.
All the big cloud providers like Google and AWS as well as the small ones like Hetzner do have an incentive to keep IPv4 going as long as possible. They can charge a premium for things IPv4 "because addresses are scarce". Charging a premium means more profit margin.
At the same time, they do not need to invest in more than lip service for IPv6 support in their offerings: No cloud provider has any comprehensive IPv6 offering, most services don't do IPv6. The edge ones maybe do, but there are always sharp edges, missing docs and general pain, pushing everyone back to IPv4 where the profits are.
But it is happening. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html shows it slowly but steadily increasing.
On a more serious node: IPv6 can be short and if used right they are actually short. Unfortunately, people continue not to care about relearning their habits and treat IPv6 as if it‘s a 1:1 replacement of IPv4 (you can even see it in this threat when people ask „why would you need more than a /64“). A major blocker in IPv6 aren‘t just the IPs but that all sys admins out there are trained to treat IPs as they got used to from the v4 world and can‘t stop to think of them as scarce resources instead of applying a hierarchical approach.