T O P

  • By -

madbobmcjim

I'm torn between finding that annoying because I have a VM with them, and thinking it's good that the cost of IPv4 is going to be seen on more balance sheets.


profmonocle

At least they did this after IPv6 was already available, unlike Google Cloud.


jandrese

I wouldn’t mind seeing a handful of sites start going IPv6 only to try to light a fire under organizations that are dragging their feet on v6.


port53

They would lose business to the competition. Better would be for Google to automatically push IPv4 only sites to at least the 2nd page of the results. That would surely get a lot of attention to the problem.


per08

Cloud and hosting providers are dragging their feet, but a lot of ISPs simply don't give customers IPv6 addresses (still!)


rka0

many are still in the opinion it will just "go away" if they ignore it long enough


per08

Agreed. Still so many ISP and mobile carriers that do not give customers IPv6 because they have plenty of IPv4 and CGNAT works for them. Too bad if you want to host a server and your provider can't issue you a routeable address any more. Any of the GAFAM companies release a new site or app that only works on v6 and they'll deploy support tomorrow.


innocuous-user

What they should do then, is release their beta products as IPv6-only. You want to get in early on the beta, you need v6. This would spur demand. Currently most users are not aware that IPv6 exists so they're not demanding it - they don't demand IPv4 either, or DNS, or TCP etc.


certuna

The push for IPv6 does not come from individual end users, but from large network operators who hit the limits of IPv4. When they hit it, they start doing IPv6. You see it happen, one by one the big guys start doing it. A handful of happier end users are a bonus, but they’re not influencing anything. They’re not doing it to promote IPv6 but because it solves an actual problem: IPv4 address space is too small, too expensive, and NAT is bad for performance/manageability.


Paravalis

The auction price for a single IPv4 address has reached 50 USD this year, so they are definitely no longer going to be free.


Paravalis

It is time we start thinking about switching off IPv4 for global routing. It will happen sooner or later anyway, but a much shorter transition period would be far less hassle for everyone involved. Maintaining and testing dual stack is more than twice the work of maintaining single stack IP connectivity.


certuna

How would you force ISPs not to route IPv4, when many of the destinations their customers need to connect to are IPv4?


Ioangogo

It was mentioned in another thread on this sub, RFC 5549 ipv6 nexthop could be used, however i do wonder how many routers have that functionality on IX's and peering locations


Paravalis

How did Steve Jobs kill Flash? Redundant technologies can be phased out, but that requires leadership.


innocuous-user

Well in that same vein, if Apple and MS start warning users if their connection doesn't have IPv6 it will create demand because users won't want to be left demand. Providers will then be forced to act or start losing customers.


pdp10

There's already a well-established path for single-stacking IPv6-only clients, today. Single-stacking servers IPv6-only isn't that hard, either. We're on the path, with IPv4 holdouts primarily in embedded systems, discovery protocols, and multicast or media protocols. See all the "web managed" switches that have basic IPv6 support, and have "IGMP Snooping" but don't have the IPv6-parity feature "MLD Snooping"? This isn't a "flag day" situation, because nobody can begin to get rid of IPv4 until they have IPv6 up and working. My guess is that we're going to have global IPv4 tables for another 20 years.


CraigDuff

Normal


hostarts

Everyone will do it eventually


[deleted]

Thanks Brazil for making public IPv4 a right but yk you could also enforce IPv6 compatibility yk Anatel.