Re:Going IPv6 Only
by divbzero on Sunday February 20, 2022 @01:32AM
(#30403704)
I was surprised to see github.com in the list. I would generally expect them to be earlier adopters of new technology.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
You got the wrong conclusion from your argument. IPv6 is older than some of HN's audience.
Indeed, IPv6 has existed for 26 years yet here we are in 2022 still having issues using it. Sites/apps are still deployed IPv4 only, consumer equipment is not ready for IPv6, and very few ISPs are even providing customers with native IPv6 addresses.
Mine is, luckily, so I've been able to set my network up, but I'm struggling to see how the world is gonna make this transition in the near future tbh. My guess is we'll be stuck with carrier grade NAT for a long time.
My ISP is dual stack (cox), as is AT&T fiber -- but that is only for residential. Almost all consumer gear is IPv6 compatible, much of Cisco Meraki's still isn't or is limited.
It is not all consumer.
Re:Going IPv6 Only
by 41b696ef1113 on Sunday February 20, 2022 @12:37PM
(#30407421)
>...consumer equipment is not ready for IPv6
Is that true? I had assumed that all network equipment could do IPv6, but the functionality was not exposed by default.
Just because the equipment can do it, doesn't mean it's ready. I was trying to get my home network setup for IPv6, but the DSL modem would reboot if a fragmented packet was sent, so that's not really ready. The replacement modem didn't reboot, but had severe induced latency, so I went in a different direction and still don't have IPv6.