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

Re:Ask HN: Why are we so reluctant to use IPv6? by ktpsns on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @04:20AM (#21201142)

Same for me: Had to use IPv6 via my home cable uplink. The IPv4 gateway was located at the ISP. This translation service was called "DSLite". The performance was horrible, connections frequently dropped. This was basically last year.

Now I pay more (like 35€/m instead of 20€/m) to get an IPv4 only connection.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why are we so reluctant to use IPv6? by LargoLasskhyfv on Friday October 11, 2019 @06:57AM (#21223165)

Funny. For me the carrier grade NAT via DSLite performs better. If i run full dual stack my router is getting warmer, and there are dropouts/pauses. IPv4 only is nothing special. Best performance of all is when only IPv6 is involved, like unbelievable pings and rtts over the atlantic. I tested that a long time ago because it could switch it at will, and after a reconnect it worked like ordered. Anyways, it also depends on the peering of your ISP and the involved devices.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why are we so reluctant to use IPv6? by ktpsns on Monday October 21, 2019 @05:04AM (#21310408)

Interesting, I never heard of practical advantages of IPv6 for the end user, such as dramatically better ping times. Given the simplified routing, I can imagine this to be true. Are there applications where this pays off, such as reduced delays in cross-atlantic video chats?

[ Parent | on HN ]