News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on IPv6 Wall of Shame. Parent comment

Re:IPv6 Wall of Shame by phicoh on Thursday September 15, 2016 @04:10AM (#12504263)
Except that you probably want a different solution on wired. On mobile just about everybody is running with IPv6-native and the NAT64/DNS64 for IPv4. On wired, you may want to do something different. For example, if some of your customers need a pubic IPv4 address, then you want dual stack. You have to deal with CPEs doing IPv6 correctly, etc.

So it is better to see it as a completely different project. The core routing IPv6 is the same, but that tends to be the easy part.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPv6 Wall of Shame by clarry on Thursday September 15, 2016 @04:43AM (#12504396)
> For example, if some of your customers need a pubic IPv4 address [..]

I don't see how this has anything to do with wired vs wireless.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPv6 Wall of Shame by phicoh on Thursday September 15, 2016 @05:40AM (#12504606)
There are far fewer people who have a contract that specifies that they will get a public IPv4 address on mobile.

On wired, just about every business account is assumed to have a public address and often a static one. In addition, a lot of gaming doesn't work behind carrier grade NAT.

In the mobile world, this expectation of public (or even static) IPv4 addresses is almost completely absent.

[ Parent | on HN ]