It's been what, over twenty years now?
If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it. At some point we will have to admit we made a big mistake.
If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it. At some point we will have to admit we made a big mistake.
I'm all IPv6 and i got my first network segments that are IPv6 only. I got nothing to fear. And no NAT.
The lack of adoption by major players (GitHub, twitch, IMDb, etc) is a financial one, not a technical one.
Everything the "alarmists" told us has already happened. IPv4 address space has already run out which now means that you often have to pay an ever increasing fee to use a public IPv4 address, if you get one at all (more and more people are sitting behing a CG-NAT). Public IPv6 blocks are completely free.
The functionality of the Internet is severely degraded by NAT, and has been for all of those "at least 15 years". The network can't deliver its most basic function, which is to let any node talk to any other node at will.
As a result, the designs of huge numbers of higher-layer protocols have been warped and complicated, and the whole thing has contributed to the whole maelstrom of extreme commercial centralization pressures, too.
Everybody who wasn't willing to hard cut over to IPv6 should have been forced off of the Internet 20 years ago.
There are very valid reasons to want to send traffic to a node so called "out of the blue", and suggesting otherwise suggests you have never looked deeper than HTTP.
The internet as consumers know it becoming only a tool to browse websites and not an actual internet connection that can do say, peer-to-peer gaming, sucks.
Tell that to millions of people stuck behind CG-NAT. Tell that to ISPs trying to serve communities on shoe-string budgets:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
And unless laws force them to, which will be hard to implement because individual countries do not want to hamper their own economic competitivity, the industries won't do anything more than the actual greenwashing.
Chabges usually have to be implemented BEFORE the disasters happen. In a seismic zone, we should build earthquake resistant buildings now, not after the first major earthquake.
What's happened is that everybody has been forced behind NAT, completely obliterating pretty much the whole point of Internet to begin with, and that addresses that could be essentially free are super expensive. But la la la nothing has happeeeeeeeened!
Overexaggerating only makes your point come across as weak, and in my case, made me think it was all bullshit for money.
Just be honest.
And exactly who do you think is profiting?
In either case, it has little to do with IPv6, so I'll leave it there.
I think it is to do with country wise allocation. I think India is seeing wide adaption of IPv6.
Guess why people are being forced to move to CGNAT? Precisely because we have run out of addresses.
The dismissal attitude of HN towards IPv6 ("we ran out of IPv4 and everything still works!") will always baffle me. Because things are _failing_ to work.
Yup. Spending money CG-NAT gear:
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624
IPv4-only products and services is a problem right now.
Good for you! I hope my thorough ignoring the issue will not hurt your feelings.
But IPv4 people won't be able to connect to IPv6 services no matter how, so don't go surprised_pikachu.jpg whenever someone decides they don't want to pay for the IPv4 tax: https://www.bottlecaps.de/index/ https://loopsofzen.uk/
reasons range from cdn prevalence to cgnat and v6 "islands" but the old internet seems to be chugging along
This is why it's much more likely that you'll continue seeing things like CGNAT instead of IPv6 - the IPv6 standard is just an utter engineering failure no matter how you look at it.
We've been using NAT and expanding it to decades which makes it an easy proof that it brings value.
IPv6 is still barely adopted and barely available in two decades after having "ipv6 parties". What does that tell you about its value?
Do the same with IPv6, omit the NAT, and you do not need to keep that state in sync. P2P applications stop being a routing/port forwarding problem and are only a matter of firewall settings. Cut away all that SIP and IPsec debugging.
https://rex.apnic.net/statistics?allocationType=asn,ipv4,ipv...
This was known since the incipit, still we moved on <facepalm/>.
> And so the kinda-working status quo makes moving to the properly-working system much harder.
It's called evolution: there is no "properly-working system" unless it works at every stage. If it is at disadvantage in an intermediate stage, it will never be selected.
I don't think there's any evidence that things have to be evolved in the tech world.
paradigm shifts happen all the time.
Look, all the good of OOP has not obliterated C. All the excellence of functional programming has not even made a dent in OOP adoption. Hell, COBOL is still running fine!
Paradigm adoption is a matter of evolution: the fittest survives. When IPv6 will offer an immediate advantage to its users, people will switch to it. Until then, it is confined to those companies who are betting on it, other companies who have some spare money and prefer to spend it rather than have it taxed, and the stereotypical nerds who haven't anything more interesting to ponder about.
My point is paradigm shifts happen quite often. Evolution happens as well but is by no means the ONLY way as you're claiming.
If IPv6 is truly useless you wouldn't be able to visit my site at all, since Cloudflare is unable to make contact with the origin server.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" is probably the correct way. Amazon is surely aware of IPv6 but if everybody who is on IPv6 can be tunneled through IPv4 to your storefront why bother changing the site?
The new technology doesn't have to _just_ be better than the current one to cause adoption. It needs to be so much better that its worth adopting. Although judging from the fact that tiktok is on the list; it seems like new-er websites do not consider IPv6 to be better than IPv4.
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Addresses: 2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8b
2607:f8b0:4002:c00::66
2607:f8b0:4002:c00::65
2607:f8b0:4002:c00::8a
74.125.136.100
74.125.136.138
74.125.136.101
74.125.136.113
74.125.136.102
74.125.136.139Which is a policy issue (implemented through rules on a firewall), and not an inherent limitation of the technology (like NAT is).
> I work for a Native American tribe in the PNW. We scrambled to get the reservation reliable internet in the later part of 2019. We managed to cover most of the reservation with wi-max and wifi with a fiber back haul configuration. We are now slowly getting more stable and reliable fiber to the home(FttH) service installed to as many homes as we can, but it is slow process covering the mostly rural landscape doing all the work in house.
> Our tribal network started out IPv6, but soon learned we had to somehow support IPv4 only traffic. It took almost 11 months in order to get a small amount of IPv4 addresses allocated for this use. In fact there were only enough addresses to cover maybe 1% of population. So we were forced to create a very expensive proxy/translation server in order to support this traffic.
> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.
[…]
* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...
If there wasn't a flag day for IP (1983-01-01) I'm sure there would have been people still insisting on using NCP.
It took several decades' worth of experience to go from NCP to IP, and now that we've had experience with IPv4, it's worth moving towards IPv6.
> If a technology is useful, you don't have to shame people into using it.
It is useful for some people. It is not useful for others: like newly-started ISPs who can't get / afford IPv4 allocations for their millions (tens of, or hundreds of, in many APAC countries) of users and are left with paying for CG-NAT to reach many parts of the Internet. (And then their users have to double-NAT IPv4 to run their local networks, which breaks all sorts of things).
The fact that the early adopters / 'legacy' folks in some parts of the world lucked out on allocations does not mean IPv4, with its limited 32-bit address space, is "useful".
Best use of IPv6 I have seen is in cjdns.
Where are all the other examples of peer-to-peer connectivity using IPv6.
Personally I do not want peer-to-peer connection with websites doing surveillance, data collection, tracking and advertising, or other commercial entities. I do want connections with other internet users. But that cuts out so-called "tech" companies, intermediaries that have nothing to offer except middleman services. Hence there is a conflict of interest in that the benefits I could see for IPv6 (e.g., cut out the middleman) and the benefits of IPv6 to the advocates trying to shame people into adopting it (e.g., people who work for middlemen) are mutually exclusive.
So is ipv4, but most people have the benefit of learning it piecewise over a decade+.
When I do networking root cause investigations involving v4, I still get glazed over looks from professionals that don’t specialize in net, but in that case they blame their own knowledge. If it’s v6 it’s the protocol’s fault they don’t know it.