So that's, what, another few months? Of course, there are still many other huge blocks of unused space. But eventually we'll either finally make the jump or everything becomes the NAT setup from hell, as it is today with mobile connections. Speaking of which: I believe mobile internet would have been an excellent opportunity to ship IPv6-only devices to a mass market and that in turn would have resulted in a widespread adoption effect. Oh well...
I believe mobile internet would have been an excellent opportunity to ship IPv6-only devices to a mass market
Some carriers (e.g. T-Mobile) are discussing going IPv6-only with NAT64+DNS64 to access IPv4 servers, but there are a few cases where this is worse than IPv4-only with NAT44 and very few cases where it is better. So you're basically proposing to make phones worse.
and that in turn would have resulted in a widespread adoption effect.
> So you're basically proposing to make phones worse.
I'm proposing to make phone worse by suggesting my wireless broadband should not be behind NAT? How is upgrading this infrastructure worse than the patchwork disaster we have now? Can you give some examples?
> I don't see why.
I don't see why not.
IPv6 is lacking critical mass. The mobile space is fast-lived and semi-organized enough to serve as a vector to push fundamental things like these through into general adoption.
IPv6-only phones would be accessing mostly IPv4-only servers... through NAT64.
I don't think the concept of critical mass is applicable to IPv6. Even if, say, 10M phones switched over, I don't think that would increase anyone else's incentive to adopt IPv6. If you don't use transition technologies there's an insurmountable chicken-egg problem, but if you use transition technologies there's no real network effect.
> IPv6-only phones would be accessing mostly IPv4-only servers... through NAT64.
Not for long, that's the whole point. I postulate in order to make 80% of servers IPv6 addressable, it would only take a couple dozen companies to upgrade their servers. They'll do it when clients out there want it.
> Even if, say, 10M phones switched over, I don't think that would increase anyone else's incentive to adopt IPv6.
The number of mobile internet devices is increasing very sharply. And yes, accommodating this growing segment of users is going to force network upgrades globally. The chicken-egg problem is exactly the reason why I mentioned this idea. Mobile device manufacturers and operators have leverage, influence and money.
5 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 26.6 ms ] threadSome carriers (e.g. T-Mobile) are discussing going IPv6-only with NAT64+DNS64 to access IPv4 servers, but there are a few cases where this is worse than IPv4-only with NAT44 and very few cases where it is better. So you're basically proposing to make phones worse.
and that in turn would have resulted in a widespread adoption effect.
I don't see why.
I'm proposing to make phone worse by suggesting my wireless broadband should not be behind NAT? How is upgrading this infrastructure worse than the patchwork disaster we have now? Can you give some examples?
> I don't see why.
I don't see why not.
IPv6 is lacking critical mass. The mobile space is fast-lived and semi-organized enough to serve as a vector to push fundamental things like these through into general adoption.
I don't think the concept of critical mass is applicable to IPv6. Even if, say, 10M phones switched over, I don't think that would increase anyone else's incentive to adopt IPv6. If you don't use transition technologies there's an insurmountable chicken-egg problem, but if you use transition technologies there's no real network effect.
Not for long, that's the whole point. I postulate in order to make 80% of servers IPv6 addressable, it would only take a couple dozen companies to upgrade their servers. They'll do it when clients out there want it.
> Even if, say, 10M phones switched over, I don't think that would increase anyone else's incentive to adopt IPv6.
The number of mobile internet devices is increasing very sharply. And yes, accommodating this growing segment of users is going to force network upgrades globally. The chicken-egg problem is exactly the reason why I mentioned this idea. Mobile device manufacturers and operators have leverage, influence and money.