[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)