Ask HN: Why are we so reluctant to use IPv6?

Re:Ask HN: Why are we so reluctant to use IPv6? by CyberFonic on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @03:38AM (#21200941)

I have been working with IP based networks for close to two decades. I have yet to have a client who really wants and needs IPv6. The main reason being that the majority of nodes do not need to access any arbitrary node over the internet. Thus for the most part nodes happily exist behind RFC1918 private networks. Their edge NAT and the carrier's NAT provide accessibility in spite of the address space limitations of IPv4.

Of course, there are use cases for IPv6 and where it is the best solution it is being used. But where IPv4 gets the job done it is very hard to justify replacing equipment just for the sake of being IPv6 compliant.

The use of NAT64 is helping many organisations to delay migrating to IPv6. From a purists point of view it is probably not an ideal solution. But it seems to keep the pragmatists happy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why are we so reluctant to use IPv6? by neojima on Sunday October 13, 2019 @10:02PM (#21244711)

I have been working with IP based networks for over 20 years, and specifically IPv6 networks for over 17 of those. IPv6 is the main reason I got my current job, FWIW.

> The use of NAT64 is helping many organisations to delay migrating to IPv6.

That's...not how NAT64 works. NAT64 is fairly dependent upon deploying IPv6, like T-Mobile's 11+ million IPv6-only users who use their NAT64 platform.

I do agree that from a purist's point of view, it's not ideal, but it enables network operators to stay largely single-stack (on v6), while still facilitating access to the IPv4 internet.

[ Parent | on HN ]