Hahahahaha your ISP supports IPv6 already?

What you mean already? In Europe it has been for at least a decade. Even in Brazil v6 has been standard since 2014 or so...

Dont hold Europe up like a shining beacon..

It's a coin toss on if BT will properly allow ipv6 traffic each time the router reboots.

I've had to make provisions to force ipv4 on my machines because although composer et al. runs fine on my vps and elsewhere, if it tries to access it via ipv6 at home it more often than not hangs indefinitely.

>Europe >BT

shakes head sadly in Brexit

"In Europe"? Europe is made of many countries and all ISPs have a national structure (even if they operate in several countries) and they all decide to roll out or not ipv6 independently.

My bad. I forgot that one of the many issues I have with the EU includes the fact that it is also Big Telco's little bitch, and they only institute block-level policies when it suits Deutsche Telekom/Vodafone/Telefonica.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the EU should mandate telcos to provide users with ipv6? Why? And who is going to pay for that? Telcos will just push the price to the end users. I don't need ipv6.

Pushing IPv6 would more likely than not decrease the cost for end users, and it could allow competition from independent ISPs.

Well sure, if you already have your own IPv4 address(es) - but not everyone has !

You forget about the opportunity cost that comes from our broken Internet where you cannot assume end-to-end network connectivity because you might have to deal with NAT and especially CGNAT ! (How many protocols end up overcomplicated (=expensive) and dead in the water because of that ?)

In the uk we already pay bt tax money to keep our network up to date ipv6 should be included in that.

Most people want ipv6 so they can get more ips / static ips, but from a legislation perspective its more about future proofing and staying relevant.

Most people want ipv6? What % of people even know what ipv6 is?

They don't know it by name, but if you tell them that with IPv6 they could ditch their mobile phone service (their home router can run a SIP trunk just fine, so all they need is a non-NATed connection), or that you could create a FON-style mesh network where you could make money by becoming a hotspot provider, they would be more interested.

> Most people want ipv6 so they can get more ips / static ips

My statement was clearly the use case of ipv6 a direct answer to your question. Why? as in why would people want ipv6.

Anyway have fun playing dumb.

Most people want more ips or static ips? How many people know what an ip is even? Jesus.

Still not what I said. Gargamel.

I'm in Europe, I have yet to have used a residential (or even corporate!) network which has any form of IPv6 support. Of all the networks I've interacted with over the years, only my cell carrier supports IPv6.

Many years old routers had a single external ipv4 and behind the NAT each computer got an internal ipv4 as a way to never end up exhausting the pool of IPs that each ISP has. But it’s been a long while since it has changed:

Most of the home networks I use are still behind a NAT use a single ipv6 to interface the world and within the network each computer has an internally assigned ipv4 just in case some operating system may not be compatible with ipv4.

Still are many old routers using ipv4 only out there as not many people care to renew their hardware as long as their WhatsApp and Netflix works.

Well, if governments really care about IPv6 (and the previous campaigns to push it were not just about "look how progressive we are"), they'll do something similar to what they've done with digital TV broadcasting :

they would first ban the selling of new devices not compatible with IPv6, then forbid ISPs to advertise IPv4-only connections as "Internet", then ban the selling of new IPv4-compatible devices.

(In a few years we're going to reach anyway the point when IPv6-only connections (mostly in Asia) outnumber IPv4-only devices (mostly in Africa, which sucks because they're the least able to afford an upgrade, but then being forced behind CGNAT sucks too).)

Ok, at least in Germany I noticed since I moved here that all residential routers were dual-stack. I even ended up disabling v6 because I wanted to run some things in my home network and I wasn't too sure about the firewall configuration.

Something that I find incredible, but have seen no one contradicting yet, is how when ISPs have started to roll residential IPv6 by default some years ago, they first had no firewall on IPv6 and/or later it was disabled by default (so only few % of users would enable it at best). (Not sure if the situation has changed ?)

Now, IPv6 (when properly implemented, which is another failure mode) comes with much better safety out of the box (like not being able to scan all the suffixes in a reasonable amount of time to find computers on the local network to target), but I'm still impressed that now we seemingly have hundreds of millions of personal computers "directly" connected to the Internet with at best only the OS firewall as protection (when one exists), and it hasn't resulted in major hacking issues ! (yet.)

The difference is a direct IPv6 conmected Windows 7-11 is actually prepared to be on the internet in a way that Windows 95 never was.

There never really was any such thing as a safe network, but it used to be acceptable to assume LAN traffic was safe. Now we know you might be on airport wifi or a large corporate network with compromised systems and the OS and systems software needs to handle that.

Right - and pre-Windows Vista, you would have to install IPv6 support yourself ?

I guess the hackpocalypse will have to wait for when low-end computers (like those in tvs, cameras, personal assistants, connected doorbells, home automation, refrigerators) - you know, "Internet of Shit" that you can't really expect to feature its own firewall (?) finally get upgraded to IPv6 ? (How does it look like today ?)

Germany is one of the better countries when it comes to IPv6 adoption, and even then it's only about ~55%

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Comcast in the US does (if you use your own router and configure it correctly.)

There's this goofy band of people that know just enough to bring their own router but don't understand why a misconfigured AAAA record can mess up the happy eyeballs algorithm and are convinced Comcast is "censoring" small business. It's funny and kind of sad to read comments from people who are certain their misconfigured networks are the result of some "international conspiracy" against them. That's probably why Comcast has it turned off on the routers they loan to customers.

Comcast Business requires customers to use a gateway provided by Comcast to support static IP addresses. I was thrilled to finally get IPv6 support, but it seemed impossible to prevent Comcast from inserting their own nameserver in IPv6 leases, which broke my network. I tried running my own dhcpdv6 and radvd servers to no avail. This took me way out of my comfort zone and much deeper into the weeds of IPv6 than I ever expected to go. I finally disabled IPv6 (and I can't even tell you how I did it) to get things working properly again. Maybe I don't have the required skillset to implement IPv6 properly, but I really got the feeling that Comcast introduces unnecessary obstacles for business customers with slightly advanced needs in order to serve the lowest common denominator (aside from my special requirements, IPv6 mostly worked out of the box, which is probably their goal).

Seconding this. It's a very irritating implementation detail of Comcast Business service. It can be worked around of course, if you have a VPS somewhere close-ish with a static IP you can do the whole WireGuard tunnel thing at the cost of some extra moving parts and maybe a minor latency hit. And while overall their business offering is certainly vastly better than their consumer shit, if you're on their router they're still jerks. I've noticed their own pushed WiFi keeps switching itself back on for example. Overall it reinforced my desire to use absolutely anything but Comcast whenever possible, though when it's not I'd still pick business service of consumer service.

Yeah, that has been typically the case a few years ago around here - you could have more than a single /64 on a residential connection (and better than the bare minimum of other IPv6 functionality), but it required to get your own router (and sometimes even spend time with tech support because they wouldn't test that use case as much as their own router that you'd get by default).

> These days, your ISP would (hopefully) give you at least a whole (static) /56

You must not have met many ISPs.

ISP might give me an IPv6 but my mobile can't connect to it.

You might be already in the minority here (even in the USA !), as it looks like that the cell carriers there now overwhelmingly run on IPv6, and tunneling IPv4, which doesn't always work well ?

https://old.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/97ifsv/issues_with...

I am in EU - Czechia. I have 5G, but unable to connect to any IPv6. :-/

I have the same network ISP for my apartment and they give me only IPv6.

I hate it.

That's weird... have you tried to find out what was the cause for lack of 5G (!!) IPv6 ?

In many parts of the world it's no IPv6 on mobile, just CGNAT with probably thousands of customers sharing one ip.

I have a static ip4 address, but were that not the case yes I'd take the ip6 plunge.

Edit: Which I could do as my ISP and mobile network both support ip6. Y'all need better ISPs :D

> Y'all need better ISPs :D

If only there was one around here, but alas, they're all basically the same 2-3 ISPs - a couple of main ISPs, then smaller ones who are just using their network and renting bandwidth.