IPv6 Internet is broken | Hacker News Reader

IPv6 Internet is broken

adminhacks.com

282 pointsstargrave98 comments

This is a “Cogent is broken” problem and not an IPv6 is broken problem. Anyone who has to deal with getting full tables for any significant length of time knows not to single home to Cogent— they’ll do it on v4 peerings too (See their spats with AOL and Level 3)

As an end user, I don't have a "make Cogent behave differently" button, but I do have an "enable IPv6" button.

And when turning that one off makes my internet work, and turning it on makes my internet not work, guess what.

Cogent does supply some residential users, mostly in high density housing, but generally Cogent customers have options and can switch. That's the 'make Cogent behave differently' button of course, it doesn't work very fast. And on this issue, it may not ever work.

Cogent is best used as part of a multihoming strategy, and not as an only route. Even if you take a neutral stance about their role in peering disputes, the fact that they are involved in a lot of them means if you only use them, you're likely to have less connectivity than if you had a different transit provider or multiple transit providers.

Same feelings as others: avoid Cogent at all costs and encourage anyone who solely uses Cogent to switch to another provider, preferably in a multi-home configuration. It's not even this issue, Cogent simply wants your dollars and do f***-all but the absolute minimum.

Basically, most tier-1 providers allows settlement-free peering with anyone who can meet some physical requirements (like having mutual interconnection in America, Europe and Asia) and legal ones (everyone wants to avoid sanctions). HE clearly meets this requirement. Google also clearly meets this requirement. Both are not connected to Cogent despite both are willing to interconnect to Cogent.

Cogent just allows connections to whoever they feel to connect, they don't have a criteria except for "if we allow them, will they kill our business"?

Isn't this a common failure pattern in tech now? A big company gets "successful" by selling cheap or free. They build a big crowd who are accepting of poor service then inflict arbitrary decisions on their customers, and once the abuse is normalised they spread "broken" tech through standards-breaking and non-interoperability. People then justify the problem because a mob of beaten-down users meekly accept the situation and anyone asking for better is dubbed an "elitist" or "idealist". For example, between them Google and Microsoft have wrecked email. IPv6 doesn't look "broken" here, it's just under attack.

> For example, between them Google and Microsoft have wrecked email.

How so?

an example that comes to mind : find me in the RFC where it is stated that blocking residential ips is ok. (google does this, so not compliant to original standard)

I would also add (but this is not email per se) : no adoption for GPG/PGP this makes your cryptographic signature a bare textfile attachement.

both microsoft and gmail spam filter = blackbox.

My mail server occasionally receives mail from residential ISPs and it's literally always spam.

If people could be trusted to manage their mail server we wouldn't have this problem, but IoT crapware is still listening on port 23 till this very day and the manuals still state that you need to disable the firewall and forward all traffic to your shitty webcam for it to work. Reporting this abuse to the carrying ISPs is about as useless as shouting my complaints down the toilet.

Until both IoT production companies and individual consumers take responsibility for the awful internet created by these maliciously incompetent users and the laughably bad IoT devices they buy, I'm not removing this filter rule from my mail server.

I do usually get a notification that something hit quarantine so if it sounds important I can still see it, but I've never had to release mail banned for this reason so far.

Denylisting whole ip ranges is lazy and hurtful. Google accepts email from residential ips. Why can't you?

> My mail server occasionally receives mail from residential ISPs and it's literally always spam.

I sent mail from my home isp for years, until people like you made unfeasible.

> I do usually get a notification that something hit quarantine so if it sounds important I can still see it, but I've never had to release mail banned for this reason so far.

Most small operators refused to allowlist me even after making phone calls, etc.

> Google accepts email from residential ips. Why can't you? Because Google receives enough email to tweak its spam filters sufficiently. I have to rely on more general block lists.

> I sent mail from my home isp for years, until people like you made unfeasible. I've accepted mail from home ISPs for years but a recent-ish (±5 years ago) but short wave of spam from botnets made me turn on the spam filter on my new server.

> Most small operators refused to allowlist me even after making phone calls, etc. With my setup you won't even have to call me because I'll probably whitelist your server anyway. May take a day depending on how recent the latest quarantine report was, but that's no different from normal email anyway. My spam threshold is quite high so if you take the normal measures (SPF/DKIM/reverse PTR/etc.) you probably won't even hit the spam filter.

>>If people could be trusted to manage

Nice proving the OP orginal opening statement, well done ....

What are you refering to? IPv6 requires less management than IPv4 because address assignment and DNS server assignment can all be done statelessly.

> find me in the RFC where it is stated that blocking residential ips is ok

Is there one that actually states it isn't OK, that I'm unaware of?

It perhaps goes against the spirit of the RFCs and other documentation written at the time, but that is understandable because a lot of that stuff was written from the standpoint of being able to trust people on the Internet, including that they fully understand and have properly secured the hosts under their purview…

I send mail from home just fine, though my connection is through an ISP that is generally identified as offering commercial accounts (AAISP). You do have to make sure that you have SPF and DKIM configured but that is the case elsewhere too.

My machines see quite a lot of activity (SSH login attempts, attempts at brute force logins & scans for known vulnerability in old versions of HTTP(S) hosted software, and more, not just attempts to send junk mail) from what appears to be compromised machines on residential connections.

By "stopping spam" in a manner that defines all[1] email not originating at Google or MS as spam, while at the same time allowing thousands of spam messages to be send via their infrastructure with limited ways for others to block it....

[1] yes I am aware not all, but unless you are a big player good luck getting gmail or ms to accept your mail

We don't have a problem with it. With DMARC enabled they'll both accept your mail.

> but unless you are a big player good luck getting gmail or ms to accept your mail

This 'evil corp blocks my SMTP server' superstition really needs to stop. False positives hurt them as much as it does you, so you bet that there is 0 incentive to block emails from your IP.

If the email is properly DKIM aligned for the domain, it really does not matter which IP address the email is originating from.

IP addresses (especially with IPv6) are ephemeral, and email providers have figured this our years ago. If spam filters were IP based and persistent, they would have blocked the entire IPv4 internet by now. So they don't.

Spam filters (not the one you run at home, but proper ones used by Google and MS) use the email's content and domain reputation. Most of it is ML driven. IP addresses are irrelevant, unless when you force the receiver to fall back to IP assessment by not signing your email.

TL;DR: if your SMTP service is being blocked by 'large evil corp', it is because your domain and/or SMTP service are not properly configured.

Dont forget the part where folks cant host their own mail server at home because Google requires a valid reverse dns record linked to their IP.

That is not a requirement specific to Google. Most inbound SMTP services require this, even most open-source implementations. This requirement is not invented by Google, but caused by spammers using botnets.

Also, not being able to set a reverse DNS for a domestic IP is not Google's fault, it is your ISP not allowing you to 'own' an IP, and not allowing you to set a reverse DNS for the IP they lease to you.

This is why ISP offer business packages. These will allow you to own the IP (block), and set reverse-DNS for it.

No mention yet of the HE/Cogent peering cake?

https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg

From 2009, damn, this has been going on for 13 years now...

This is absolutely fantastic. Thank you for linking!

I remember this! Sad that it's still an issue :(

It's not IPv6 that is broken, it's fucking Cogent and they have always been like that

Yea, they’ve always been happy to sell bulk transit for rock bottom prices, then try to leverage their customer base against other companies.

Everyone in the ISP/Transit world does it though, trying to double dip by charging their customers for service then trying to charge other to peer with them unless it’s in their favor to peer freely.

Peering should be best effort, and as close to free as possible when you already have a presence in a location. I understand some cost to cover the hardware necessitated by peering, but the only person being charged should be the customer you’re providing a service in my opinion.

This is the classic Comcast "why does netflix get a free ride" Pr spin for a few years ago where they are battling net neutrality and trying to convince the public that Netflix, and Google were "free riding" and "not paying their fair share" for the network which is "just like water"

Lots of disdain for Cogent on this thread, and very little comments about HE effectively having much the same business model as Cogent: sell pipes as cheap as possible, run them as hot (full) as possible, care little about performance implications.

As a transit supplier, they’re both pretty low quality, suited to bulk traffic only. Anything latency/loss sensitive goes over other providers.

HE and Cogent both are best suited to their roles as carrier of last resort. If you as a customer depend primarily on either of them, that’s a particularly unfortunate situation that should be remediated if possible.

Isn't this the intended business model? Different tiers for different needs at different price points? I'd think that HE could offer a higher service level with better quality if the economics would make sense

HE will peer with you for free on most IX AFAIK, here is an HE IPv6 peering from a tiny not-for-profit ISP on FranceIX-Paris:

https://lg.tetaneutral.net/detail/h7/ipv6?q=HE_FRANCEIX_PARI...

162016 IPv6 routes from HE. Current IPv6 full view about 166926 routes.

Cogent will not peer with you.

If you're starting an ISP: buy cogent and another transit, peer with HE on your local IX, you should be good to go.

Yup! I have 162161 routes from HE right now (for free) on the SeattleIX.

> Lots of disdain for Cogent on this thread, and very little comments about HE effectively having much the same business model as Cogent: sell pipes as cheap as possible, run them as hot (full) as possible, care little about performance implications.

I'm sorry, but how is the quality of HE's performance in any way relevant to the issue of Cogent refusing to follow industry norms for settlement-free / equal cost-sharing peering? Cogent isn't refusing to peer with HE (and Google btw) because of latency/loss. Cogent is notorious for trying to squeeze every penny out of other networks through peering, HE is the exact opposite.

I'm a Cogent customer and we wouldn't be where we are without them, but, they give me the most headaches out of any provider I have to deal with.

I tried raising a complaint as their SLA states about packet deliverability/guarantees - and I said "well, you have 100% packet loss to HE"... I didn't get very far and they basically just blamed it on HE - but, I wonder if someone had more time, if they could make a complaint down this avenue?!

That's clever, but they've been pulling this BS for over a decade, and I'm sure their SLA is iron-clad.

Has there ever been a conversation in which Cogent was the good guy?

There was the Comcast peering dispute over Netflix traffic (carried by Cogent) around 2014.

That's funny, shortly after I made my comment I had a faint recollection of Comcast v. Cogent. I'm still not sure who to blame in that pissing match. Comcast is one of the most hated retail ISPs in the US while Cogent is one of the most hated bargain basement Tier 1.5 transit ISPs in the country. While I'd genuinely have a difficult time picking sides in such a fight I think that in the end, I'd have to side with Comcast, as much as I hate to say it. I'd love to hear from people more in the mix than me on the topic.

"It's a pity both sides can't lose"

I think Comcast "wins" the most evil here just because they have a monopoly on broadband in many areas, so overcharge their customers for substandard service, then they turn around and use the monopsony of Internet access to those customers to charge for peering.

At least Cogent charges low prices for their shit.

"broken", not really -- in practice anyone who cares about IPv6 connectivity does not use Cogent as their only upstream, or they learn very quickly that Cogent does not provide them with what they advertise. This might impact you if you're in the business of buying transit from a tier 1 provider, but that's virtually nobody.

(It's also far from the only issue you'll get as a Cogent customer, they're generally, uh, pretty shit.)

I'd say this is a Cogent problem. Not an IPv6 nor an "Internet" problem. Tye solution is to single out Cogent and that class of ISPs, like Telefónica in ES.

It’s generally not a good idea to be single homed anyway. My first network was only upstreamed by HE and I ran into the Cogent situation quite quickly. Adding more upstreams fixed it. But also other NSPs don’t reach everything. Sometimes there are some niche networks that can only be reached over peering or some other transit providers. Though it’s super rare.

True, but many small businesses don’t have the hardware or expertise to manage multiple full BGP tables. Also depending where you are your ISP options might be limited. For example one of the remote sites I manage only has Lumen/CenturyLink wired to the building. If would really stink if I couldn’t get to anything on HE’s network through no fault of my own.

IPv6 have many defects BUT allow a lost thing we desperately need NO DAMN needed NAT. Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service at home, with a static IPv6 global address and a domain name bound to it.

IMVHO many giants obstacle IPv6 NOT because it's hard and not so nice BUT because they fear loosing their privileged position. Oh, sure most people do not have TODAY a homeserver but how much would it take to see pre-packaged pseudo-FLOSS homeservers like we see for android "pirate-TV minicomputers"?

Try weighting that before judge.

ISPs don't want this. They want to upsell you to a business service if you want a static IP. They'll just use dynamic IP allocation aka DHCP to make the whole thing really inconvenient.

*some ISP's don't want this.

I'm on Zen in the UK and have both a static IPv4 (with additional IP's available for a relatively lot fee in blocks of 8 or more) and a /48 IPv6 block.

Same with A&A, although they are a bit more expensive than the likes of Sky / Virgin / BT it’s definitely worth it.

So what? Almost for a decade, I used to have 15 IPv4 addresses with OVH _for free_, and this very December they decided to start charging for them.

Before OVH, I also was with another similarly-cheapo ISP that gave me one IPv4 for free until they decided to start charging for it (and I left).

It's just a matter of time. Of course if your ISP is expensive enough they'll just keep eating the cost for more years, but .. what's the point? One IPv4 is not that costly yet that is worth an expensive ISP over it...

For sure, but while they do not want I DO WANT. With IPv4 they have a valid excuse: we do not have enough address, with IPv6 they have no valid excuse.

As others have commented, ISPs explicitly do not want this happening. One of the service tiers at my house was previously advertised as 900/35. 900 Mbps down, 35 mbps up. Now, there are no ISPs that rate the upload speed at all. At least one of the ISPs at my house has language in the contract that limits usage to that initiated by a live operator, so any sort of hosting is obviously prohibited. Another ISP solved this by delegating several /64 addresses, but only actually routing traffic for a single IPv6 address.

Here (France) I got 2Gbps down, 860Mbps up (and I'm on mountains, not downtown) so definitively asymmetric but still with a very good upload for home usages, for instance for simple p2p file sharing while on an ip2ip VoIP call with a friend, no special services in between.

All we need is IMVHO a general culture on IT and it's evolution, to push politicians MANDATE no throttling, routing tricks etc with public watchdogs that sanction all anti-users behaviors in tech, not just for ISP but for instance in terms of communications service: you are a company and decide to offer a new "modern chat" service with a new protocol? Ok, no issues. Do it if you want BUT if the protocol is closed source or design in a way to makes third party "peering" hard you get significant income slice ALL THE TIME this design persist. Let's say you state "ah but file-sharing pass on our servers and bandwidth and storage are costly. That's good. So allow third party "caching services" or direct IP2IP sharing or pay the sanction for having chosen an anti-user design.

Since all this "features" and "anti vs pro" can't be written in laws up front that's the simple way to go: from the PUBLIC academia a watchdog who listen FLOSS associations, citizens, users in general and keep watching not impeding, but sanctioning. Enough to allow free ALSO commercial innovation, but not enough to makes some behaviors interesting for any business.

The utility of home servers and server-like devices is limited by upstream bandwidth on asymmetric connections (virtually all home broadband except some fiber-based services). Not IP addressing.

Dynamic DNS has been around for decades and provides a solution if you really want to run a home server behind NAT. If someone wanted to market a home server box, they would just need to implement something like DDNS... and Plex basically does just that.

But most people have limited upstream bandwidth, such that it's impractical to serve much content from home, except maybe to yourself as a 'road warrior' via VPN, or video streams via Plex, stuff like that.

If home broadband was symmetric, even with NAT, we would see many more applications taking advantage of that upstream bandwidth.

> Witch means that with a 2Gbps+ f.o. connection you can host your service at home, with a static IPv6 global address and a domain name bound to it.

Nice in theory, but some ISPs (mine included) will happily give you a /56 via prefix delegation, but if your connection drops, you will possibly get a different prefix, and so your IP unfortunately changes.

Netflix also refuses to accept HE IPv6 traffic. This was 'fun' to find out when deploying IPv6 on my home network, and my TV could no longer stream from them.

Wow I did not know this. Tested this on HE's Looking Glass and you're right. Ridiculous!

People were abusing their 6to4 tunnel, which is why Netflix banned them.

It's a geo-fencing / DRM / regional licensing restrictions BS problem. HE is innocent, and Netflix probably doesn't have a choice* (though arguably what should matter is the bank account location of the buyer).

I remember seeing this, by accident, years and years ago before it was blocked. Took me longer than it should to realise why I was seeing US Netflix content, in the UK.

fortunately from my ISP in Czech republic I can reach both destinations via IPv6 fine. However, the said ISP is giving me only /64 IPV6 block therefore limiting it to one subnet. That is poor, really poor implementation that does not allow ipv6 e.g. in my work laptop VLAN. O2 internet(the ISP) - you suck.

If this is DSL/FTTH, don't wait and switch to T-Mobile, Metronet or UVTnet. O2 have been doing this wrong since 2012 and it doesn't look like they will fix it in this decade.

Forgot to mention that while O2 provides you with a poor single /64, UVTnet gives you a nice and shiny /48 (others currently stick to /56s). What a difference.

Unfortunately, multiple ISPs (PODA, Vodafone-ex-UPC) are doing it wrong and they do not seem to be bothered by it or even trying to fix it.

True dat. Some of the mishaps can be attributed to incompetence and some to lack of desire to be real ISPs for the future. Too bad one is usually geographically restricted to one or a very few ISPs, especially when all of them are doing IPv6 wrong.

The situation is even worse here at your SE neighbors. The three nation wide ISPs don't provide working IPv6 at all:

Slovak Telekom (Deutsche Telekom Subsidiary, same as Czech T-Mobile/T-Com) - FTTx, DSL, WISP

Orange (French Orange S.A. subsidiary) - FTTx, DSL, WISP

O2 (The Czech HQ'd PPF owned, not the UK one) - WISP

And even the more regional, but still big, aren't much better.

UPC (Liberty Global subsidiary) - Cable

Antik (Slovak company) - FTTx, Cable, WISP

SWAN (also Slovak company) - DSL, FTTx, WISP

But I have to shout out my dad's ISP, it's called RadioLAN, it's a slovak company, provides WISP and FTTx and also IPv6 to everyone by default. So far the only one I've found. Funny thing is, the peering in our country is handled by two IXs: SIX and NIX both natively supporting IPv6 interconection. If I've messed some terminology or I've outdated info, I'm sorry. As you said, nod to until we live in a very very specific location, we're left with just one ISP, or basically the same one in blue. I'm less than 10km behind the capital's outer borders, yet I have a huge problem getting FTTH ran here. It's literally connected at the both ends of our street, just not here. I've considered doing something about it myself, it's just simply too expensive.

It's not that bad (this was situation some time ago, might be even better today):

Orange does support IPv6 on FTTH and DSL (do not know about mobile network); they use DS lite and allow user port mapping for IPv4 (!), provide /56 by default. They didn't migrate existing customers, they just started with new ones (2016 for DSL, 2018 for FTTH), which is reasonable. There's also an issue with IPTV service, which runs over IPv4 multicast, so new customers with TV service (or those who ask explicitly) get IPv4-only anyway.

UPC (Liberty Global) has exactly the same issue as the Czech one: DS lite and you get /64 only. It is the same design, shared by all UPCs, (the Czech one is just a recent acquisition from them by Vodafone).

Slovak Telecom "is planning" (since 2020). TBH, I would expect ST to get rid of PPPoE on FTTH first ;)

Swan supposedly supports IPv6 now, at least in their core. They claim IPv6 support in their materials (at least in those communicated to business customers).

Note that ST/Orange/O2 are not WISPs; they are mobile networks. With WISP, the understanding is that they would use wireless radios like Radiolan does (i.e. Radiolan is WISP).

> I'm less than 10km behind the capital's outer borders, yet I have a huge problem getting FTTH ran here.

This is common and not that surprising. If you check availability for the FTTH in the capital's city center, you will find that the situation is the same (or similar: chances are, that the end of the street is not connected). It is residential areas with high density that have the good coverage.

Yup, same story here from Vietnam, my ISP only give me one /64 for delegation, so no IPv6 for my guest devices VLAN.

Why are packets not routed via peers (customers of cogent) that also peer with HE, or at least peer indirectly with HE?

My home ISP certainly can route packets to both HE and Cogent:

root@tranzistor:~# ping cogentco.com PING cogentco.com(cogentco.com (2001:550:1::cc01)) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from cogentco.com (2001:550:1::cc01): icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=21.1 ms ^C --- cogentco.com ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0msrtt min/avg/max/mdev = 21.107/21.107/21.107/0.000 ms root@tranzistor:~# ping he.net PING he.net(he.net (2001:470:0:503::2)) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from he.net (2001:470:0:503::2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=164 ms ^C --- he.net ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 164.454/164.454/164.454/0.000 ms root@tranzistor:~#

Why are packets from cogent to HE not routed via my ISP?

Because your ISP is not keen on paying for third parties transiting their network.

Your ISP does not want to route other people's traffic for them, only its customers. So it doesn't broadcast a route for arbitrary destinations through its AS.

interesting, so it's like a neighborhood between 2 major roads that has signs prohibiting through traffic?

In this case it is a cul-de-sac between two 8-lane interstate highways...

Peering is for your own traffic and traffic of your customers. You don't carry generally carry traffic for your peers to other peers. It doesn't make business sense; if congent and HE want to exchange traffic via your ISP, at least one of them is going to have to be a customer of your ISP.

With my ISPs I've had IPv4 broken more often than IPv6.

To the point that I've set up an IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnel out, for when IPv4 breaks.

I had IPv4 routing on my router just crash and die once, it took half a day to realize since so many big properties are on IPv6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering#Depeering

That article doesn't have a date (as far as I can see), is that still a problem? Looking up a random cogent ip (www.cogentco.com on bgp.he.net shows they have a route for it: https://bgp.he.net/ip/2001:550:1::cc01 (might not be true the other way around, I don't know how to check -- I can join both networks, but I'm not on either...)

It was first archived by web.archive.org in 2016, so it's at least that old. And yes, it is:

    $ wgetnull www.cogentco.com
    --2022-12-12 06:40:42--  http://www.cogentco.com/
    Resolving www.cogentco.com (www.cogentco.com)... 2001:550:1::cc01, 38.100.128.10
    Connecting to www.cogentco.com (www.cogentco.com)|2001:550:1::cc01|:80... failed: Connection timed out.
    Connecting to www.cogentco.com (www.cogentco.com)|38.100.128.10|:80... failed: Network is unreachable.

(I'm on an HE tunnel, and v4 doesn't work either since I use NAT64, so their site is just dead for me.)

Title is misleading, should be "Cogent's IPv6 support is broken"

Cogent's IPv6 peering has been broken forever, as immortalized in the HE "please peer with us" cake[1].

[1]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041

Interesting, I just tested that here as well and sure enough my HE peer had no issues going to Google, but my Cogent peer didn't. This isn't an ipv6 is broken problem this is a Cogent is broken problem.

HE and Google could block traffic to and from Cogent until they submit OR start paying THEM for access. Ill be it would take like less than a week.

I think the article could be better titled "IPv6 Internet Is Broken Right Now" because I read the title initially as the architecture is fundamentally broken, and in reality the article is saying that the architecture isn't broken but it is broken right now because of lack of peering agreements.

I would like to know which services would not work or which countries are involved.

For example everything hosted by Cogent directly: https://bgp.tools/prefix/2001:550::/32#dns

And when Cogent is my provider Google services would not work. But is it for all countries?

I ask because providers in the EU have some other laws as USA for example. Or is this peering globally the same ?

Peering disputes in Europe center around different carriers generally. But the basic dispute is the same, carrier A doesn't want to peer with carrier B, probably for business reasons, so they try to setup their peering rules so that carrier B doesn't qualify, or they won't upgrade connections.

I know I've seen some carrier names that come up in those disputes a lot, often the incumbent telco for a particular country. But you've got a lot of countries there and most of them had their own nationalized phone company, and only one or two end up having public spats over peering. There's similar stuff in some countries in Asia, where some of the incumbent telcos refuse to peer locally. (and of course, China has the GFW)

TIL hn really hates cogent

For many very good reasons

This article is from 2021 so I'm not sure why it's being posted again

    Last-Modified: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 04:23:25 GMT

ipv4 or ipv6 no one serious only has a single upstream

IPv6 is a religion, you will not reason with its adepts.

Of course they will claim that the whole world is "doing it wrong", despite the collective failure of humanity to roll out IPv6 for decades and decades.

I’m not a v6 evangelist. I don’t work in networking, nor do I know enough about it to really want to evangelise for v6. Surely “humanity hasn’t prioritised doing something, therefore the ‘something’ is inherently flawed” is an argument that conjures enough contemporary exceptions that you can see how deeply and utterly flawed it is?

IPv6 was supposed to solve problems and make life easier, not more complicated.

If your argument for adopting new technology is basically "you must eat your vegetables" then your technology has failed.

My experience building products for customers is that they're a few percent novel or exciting and >90% eating veggies.

The problem will solve itself. CGNAT will only take us so far until that no longer scales to where the ISPs want to pay for it.

That said, IPv6 is a horrible implementation.

Cgnat can scale forever. There are isps with dozens or even hundreds of millions of clients using cgnat with no issues.

As video conferencing and streaming needs increase, I'm not so sure about that. Demand for low latency experiences is only growing.

TCP/IP has 48 bits for addressing, this is more than enough for the world. There are inefficiencies currently with allocating these bits, but they're easier to solve than adopting IPv6.

It has 32 addressing bits, and even if it did have 48 that wouldn't be enough. Inefficient allocation isn't the problem; there's just not enough address space for the Internet at the scale it's reached.

v6 is much easier (and cheaper) to deal with than layers and layers of NAT everywhere.

I downvoted you because this article has nothing to do with IPv6 technology. It has to do with a large ISP being a dick and refusing to act mature and, you know, do their goddamned job and peer with other ISPs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com