[HN Gopher] Going IPv6 Only ___________________________________________________________________ Going IPv6 Only Author : MartijnBraam Score : 18 points Date : 2022-02-19 21:39 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.brixit.nl) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.brixit.nl) | ggm wrote: | No hackernews. No reddit. no github. | can16358p wrote: | And with many ISPs worldwide (including mine) still not | supporting IPv6 at all, this becomes a problem, not giving | incentive to anyone to do the work to support IPv6 (or at least | abandon IPv4) as it will only harm them by being inaccessible. | MartijnBraam wrote: | Which is why you make stuff dualstack first. Except most ISPs | don't even seem to get that far... | tsimionescu wrote: | The problem being that dualstack is worse in every way than | IPv4, and worse in every way than IPv6. | | The very fact that IPv6 adoption actually requires dual-stack | IPv4+IPv6 adoption first is the very reason that adoption | took such a hugely long time. If IPv6 could have been made | backwards compatible somehow (it's probably mathematically | impossible) then adoption would have been much faster (just | look at HTTP -> HTTP2 -> HTTP3 already). | scott00 wrote: | From a backwards compatibility perspective, HTTP2->HTTP3 is | really very similar to IPv4->IPv6. HTTP3 isn't really | backwards compatible with HTTP2. The client just | establishes a lower version connection and then the server | (which must implement both versions) adds a header to the | response telling the client they can establish a HTTP3 | connection if they want to. In IP land you get to skip the | lower version initial connection because you've already | figured it out from DNS, but other than that pretty much | the same deal. In both cases both clients and servers that | use a new version are dual-stacked because there are plenty | of both clients and servers that only support the lower | version. | vetinari wrote: | Even if they go with dualstack, they do DS-Lite instead | (public IPv6, CGNAT-ed IPv4). For customers that have already | public IPv4, that's negative incentive to even consider | switching to it, thus the IPv6 ranks are not growing, even if | they could. | vbezhenar wrote: | Yep, I have zero ISPs in my country supporting IPv6 AFAIK. Data | centers support it, but nothing for home connections. | | Major ISP performed some IPv6 tests. In 2012. No news since | then. | | Funny thing is that despite all IPv4 "shortage" I have white | IPv4 right now and can accept connections. Also it's almost | static, unless I'd turn off my modem for a prolonged period of | time, it won't change. So no real shortage, it seems. | BenjiWiebe wrote: | Just because your ISP has enough IPs for its customers | doesn't mean that there's no shortage and everybody has | enough. | | I'm behind CGNAT. I set up a wireguard tunnel to a VPS to | allow inbound connections, but that adds cost, complexity, | and latency... | V__ wrote: | If I remember correctly, one reason for the quick adaption of SSL | certificates was the combination of Let's Encrypt and Google | saying it would improve ranking. Why doesn't Google just do the | same for IPv6? With all the benefits of IPv6, wouldn't Google | benefit from such a move as well? | RKearney wrote: | Their cloud platform doesn't even fully support IPv6, so I | doubt they would do this before at least getting their own | public offerings on board. | safaci2000 wrote: | I was about to say. Cause they can't figure out IPV6 either. | Their K8 and VPC networking is still not IPv6 complaint last | I checked. If you're bored you can get this [extention](https | ://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ipvfoo/ecanpcehffn...) | and see just how much of the internet is actually IPv6 | tsimionescu wrote: | Well, forcing people to use SSL was easy to sell as an | advantage to end users. IPv6 is irrelevant for end users, so | it's a much harder sell. | | Plus, if the big guys don't adopt IPv6 first, than Google would | only be hurting their search quality if they demote projects | using IPv4 only. | zamadatix wrote: | Considering Microsoft's update of IPv6 | https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-... I | expected GitHub to get a revamp by now. | | If you already have a Linux router consider setting up NAT64, | then your entire internal network can be single stacked and when | it comes to IPv4 you'll just NAT like you normally would. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-19 23:00 UTC)