Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogecoinbase | Hacker News Reader

Yeesh, the ignorance of the folks in those threads. Painful.

Anyways, if someone can't get to non-v6 resources, they have bigger problems than not being able to use DDG. There is a single class of operator for whom v6 deployment actually makes sense, which is large-scale ISPs for whom CGNAT presents an onerous burden on their reporting/monitoring requirements to law enforcement.

Everyone else is just rolling v6 out to meet the requirement of a client (typically government) contract. It's purely additive complexity and for most people, doesn't actually solve any problems they really have.

View on HN

Home internet in Japan is IPv6 only. Usually you have to sign up for a separate NAT-like-thing that the ISP runs as well, sometimes for an additional charge.

Google puts IPv6 adoption rates in Japan slightly behind the US: https://www.google.com/intl/ja/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

And JPNIC recently discusses how v4 translation is still necessary: https://blog.nic.ad.jp/2021/6406/

I would be super interested to read more about 6to4 translation as an additional charge on residential service, if you have a link I could check out.

OP isn't true but partially true.

Most common and ubiquitous FTTH service (Flets) only provides fiber but no internet connectivity so customer also need to sign up ISP to connect internet. Even without ISP, Flets provides IPv6 address and network service without internet connectivity, but can use VoIP, IPTV, VPN, and other non-internet services.

But generally no individuals sign up only Flets without ISP. Nowadays it's bundled. Most ISP provides IPv4 connectivity via PPPoE. Many ISP also provide IPv6 connectivity, and IPv4 connectivity via v4-over-v6 technology like DS-lite, MAP-E. AFAIK no consumer ISP charges v4-over-v6 service fee if it provides v6 connectivity.

The weird point in Japan is that sometimes said that "IPv4 connection is VERY slow!" because Flets don't want to invest old PPPoE infrastructure much. Instead, Flets and ISP recommend v4-over-v6 service for IPv4 connectivity because they invest it. As a side effect (maybe not side effect), ISP could save usage of global IP addresses.

Still there are some homes use slow v4 and fast v6 connection, due to equipment doesn't support v4-over-v6 or need a global IPv4. So I recommend content providers to enable IPv6 connectivity, especially for CDN.

Ah, this is super interesting. Many thanks for the detailed response!

Wow here in Spain it's the opposite. My provider (JazzTel, part of Orange) still does only IPv4. IPv6 isn't even available if I'd want it. Not that I do, really.. there's no need yet

Everyone else is just rolling v6 out to meet the requirement of a client (typically government) contract.

I'm holding out for ipv8, where someone sensibly just slaps a 1. in front of ipv4 style addresses, which to stacks means route to old ipv4.

Then we have all we need with an extra octlet. We could even reserve a bunch for off-planet communicates, eg 100. = moon, 101 = mars, etc.

All existing tools, code, etc would see, route, etc 4 octlets to 1. addresses. Anything encountering 4 octlets would do the same. Old stuff could function forever, just with no ability to connect beyond 1.

No dual stack, no crazy issues, no 30 year old, broken attempt to re-engineer what didn't need to be done.

What were they thinking?! Yay! Let's eschew simplicity, and instead make a massive change as difficult to upgrade as possible!

Wikipedia quote, 2050...

"IPv6 was a failed standard, an attempt to.... " "replaced by more sensible IPv8..."

One thing to consider is that when IPv6 was invented, there wasn't nearly as big a userbase on IPv4 as there is now. At that time a clean-slate approach made more sense than it does now.

But yes these days things are different. And not all its features imagined to be big have panned out that way (and to be fair, even IPv4 contains several features which are no longer in use).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com