This is hilarious! I sincerely wish the US would try a stunt like this, if not for anything else then for the entertainment aspect. I emphatically don’t think it would work out as you’d expect.
What?! You don’t trust the firewalls software so you are good to trust the NAT software?
Announced by who? The United World Government? And who exactly are you forcing? Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites. Anyway, it’s not enough to force one participant. If you are going IPv6-only by…
Good regulation is really, really hard. Who do you trust enough to even attempt it? Waste and chaos matter. Or how is your pandemic going?
You need a firewall if your end points are publicly reachable, not NAT.
Well, yeah, if you start by quoting a message explicitly making statements about ISPs and then opining on that, why act surprised that others think you are talking about ISPs? As to the RIR fee thing, yeah, you are…
This is a nonstarter. Forcing services to go IPv6-only would deprive the majority of Internet users of their services. I can just about imagine the shitstorm and political blowback that would entail. Even just forcing…
IPv6-only as a term has been heavily abused. A truly IPv6-only network has no access to IPv4 resources. If it does, it isn’t really IPv6-only and relies upon IPv4 addresses and NAT to work.
The Apple claim is so hand wavy as to be meaningless. Without any hard data and like-to-like comparisons, the most that can be said is that IPv4 and IPv6 have different routing policies and this may attribute the…
Oh, come on! Geoff’s article on TCAM exhaustion is almost 10 years old. No BGP router in the default free zone has had a 512k route limit in years. Modern routers typically scale to millions of routes. The incident in…
I know there are IPv6 only hosters out there. However, as I stated previously, they are only for niche uses such as hobby projects or internal services, not for use by the general public. They will remain so until IPv6…
>That said, you can change it very easily. Just offer IPv6 traffic at a slightly lower rate than IPv4. How many cents per month will make you or anybody care? ISPs don’t even pay for the majority of their bandwidth,…
IPv4 or CGNAT costs are not optional. You will have to pay them regardless of if you deploy IPv6 or not.
I can’t see any difference in latency in the services I use between IPv4 and IPv6. What I want to know is do all these studies take into consideration the “happy eyeballs” algorithm that prefers IPv6 over IPv4 in web…
You are confusing IPv6-only and running an IPv6 core. Those are not equivalent. >It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. Of…
Can we have source to go with the IPv6 is “cheaper and faster” claim? Like actual facts stated in dollars and milliseconds. I’m also going to humor you on the IPv6-only thing. Can you actually point to a single ISP that…
How would this benefit Google?
Running an IPv6 core and offering IPv4-as-a-service doesn’t really make you IPv6-only.
This just cements the IPv4 incumbents as winners.
The problem with the above is that it isn’t a viable solution. You cannot just deploy IPv6, take your IPv4 ball and go home. ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by…
The cynic in me wants to know if all government cloud services support IPv6 as mandated, on paper only or in practice? :) The linked article isn’t as ambitious as to claim IPv6-only government networks by 2023, only…
Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box. To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to be a real need for IPv6 and/or a revenue driver. Very large…
The interesting question is, does India have enough critical mass to actually launch local IPv6-only services? A large carrier could even use IPv6 as a competitive moat by offering/sponsoring/investing in popular local…
Layers upon layers of NAT from what I hear.
This is hilarious! I sincerely wish the US would try a stunt like this, if not for anything else then for the entertainment aspect. I emphatically don’t think it would work out as you’d expect.
What?! You don’t trust the firewalls software so you are good to trust the NAT software?
Announced by who? The United World Government? And who exactly are you forcing? Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites. Anyway, it’s not enough to force one participant. If you are going IPv6-only by…
Good regulation is really, really hard. Who do you trust enough to even attempt it? Waste and chaos matter. Or how is your pandemic going?
You need a firewall if your end points are publicly reachable, not NAT.
Well, yeah, if you start by quoting a message explicitly making statements about ISPs and then opining on that, why act surprised that others think you are talking about ISPs? As to the RIR fee thing, yeah, you are…
This is a nonstarter. Forcing services to go IPv6-only would deprive the majority of Internet users of their services. I can just about imagine the shitstorm and political blowback that would entail. Even just forcing…
IPv6-only as a term has been heavily abused. A truly IPv6-only network has no access to IPv4 resources. If it does, it isn’t really IPv6-only and relies upon IPv4 addresses and NAT to work.
The Apple claim is so hand wavy as to be meaningless. Without any hard data and like-to-like comparisons, the most that can be said is that IPv4 and IPv6 have different routing policies and this may attribute the…
Oh, come on! Geoff’s article on TCAM exhaustion is almost 10 years old. No BGP router in the default free zone has had a 512k route limit in years. Modern routers typically scale to millions of routes. The incident in…
I know there are IPv6 only hosters out there. However, as I stated previously, they are only for niche uses such as hobby projects or internal services, not for use by the general public. They will remain so until IPv6…
>That said, you can change it very easily. Just offer IPv6 traffic at a slightly lower rate than IPv4. How many cents per month will make you or anybody care? ISPs don’t even pay for the majority of their bandwidth,…
IPv4 or CGNAT costs are not optional. You will have to pay them regardless of if you deploy IPv6 or not.
I can’t see any difference in latency in the services I use between IPv4 and IPv6. What I want to know is do all these studies take into consideration the “happy eyeballs” algorithm that prefers IPv6 over IPv4 in web…
You are confusing IPv6-only and running an IPv6 core. Those are not equivalent. >It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay. Of…
Can we have source to go with the IPv6 is “cheaper and faster” claim? Like actual facts stated in dollars and milliseconds. I’m also going to humor you on the IPv6-only thing. Can you actually point to a single ISP that…
How would this benefit Google?
Running an IPv6 core and offering IPv4-as-a-service doesn’t really make you IPv6-only.
This just cements the IPv4 incumbents as winners.
The problem with the above is that it isn’t a viable solution. You cannot just deploy IPv6, take your IPv4 ball and go home. ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by…
The cynic in me wants to know if all government cloud services support IPv6 as mandated, on paper only or in practice? :) The linked article isn’t as ambitious as to claim IPv6-only government networks by 2023, only…
Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box. To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to be a real need for IPv6 and/or a revenue driver. Very large…
The interesting question is, does India have enough critical mass to actually launch local IPv6-only services? A large carrier could even use IPv6 as a competitive moat by offering/sponsoring/investing in popular local…
Layers upon layers of NAT from what I hear.