It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of developers only seem comfortable with technology invented in the past 18-24 months, regardless of how untested and unstable it is.
“What's this? It was written 2 years ago? It must be old and useless. I’m going to require my app to use the latest version and I don’t care what kind of headaches it makes for the people who actually need to make sure it’s up an running when users try to use it.”
It's already possible to connect from v6 to v4, and using 48-bit addresses wouldn't make doing so any easier. 48 bits would also be way too small; there'd be no point in going to this amount of effort to update IP only to then have to do it a second time straight afterwards.
Trying to keep jumping to the new hotness is simply a survival strategy.
IPv6 has been a draft standard since 1998. Get a better argument.
I’m not interested in another argument but calling my position “pitchforks” is a bit disengenuous and irritating (which is why I’m replying, off-topic, to you).
While I think it has something to offer I would like potentially better alternatives to be able to exist in future, this is not “pitchforks”.
systemd is the choice of basically everyone who builds distros, so of course it's going to be hard to avoid unless you volunteer to do all of that work yourself. When you take work from someone else, that comes with taking on the choices that they make.
What you state is absolutely true, but denying there’s more nuance is not helpful. That’s all I’ll say because this is not a worthwhile conversation to have here.
Even if we ignore the fact that systemd made it artificially difficult* for distros to support other init systems (so it wasn't a freely made "choice"), have you never encountered a situation where the popular choice turned out to be the wrong one? Think, for example, of people throwing their trash into nearby rivers, or developers using 2 digits to store year values.
(* Imagine being a volunteer for a distro and having to deal with bugs like "I installed my new printer and it changed my init system[0] / my system no longer boots").
[0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=863974
Of course, turning off IPv6 fixed a lot of connectivity issues, at least back in the day. Maybe it's better now, but I see no benefit in re-enabling it. What's the value-add?
Horace Odes, III 65BCE
IP6 requires a bunch of new tooling and configuration, and if running dual stack provides plenty of new opportunities for failure.
When ever I enabled ipv6 I got 10/10 from test-ipv6.com and randomly few ours later it would go down for no reason. I used few hours to understand wtf was happening. Then I just gave up and disabled ipv6. I got peace of mind and lost nothing. Maybe someday I am bored enough to try again that sorcery and black magic.
In anticipation, where can I catch up on ipv6 routing? Does the number of route entries explode?
I do need a "business reason" to adopt it, since the Center for Internet Security benchmark dings your system if it is turned on.
That's also your business reason. The price for IPv4 connectivity will go up. At some point a startup will not use IPv4 anymore because it will be too expensive. If you don't have IPv6 access you will not be able to use the services of that startup.
Price of an IPv4 address has doubled last year and gone from about $7.50 in 2016 to about $40 now. https://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing/ https://ipv4.global/reports/
It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of technologists only seem comfortable with the technology that was available when they were 18-24, regardless of how old they get.
"What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?"