News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by lmm on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @07:00PM (#35721106)
CGNAT routers aren't cheap. At some point you're spending more keeping your IPv4 running than it would take to replace it.
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by j16sdiz on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @09:51PM (#35722293)
Except you can't really replace it. You need to keep BOTH for the good old internet to work.
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by lmm on Wednesday April 26, 2023 @11:17PM (#35722914)
You probably need some amount of CGNAT or equivalent (e.g. DS-Lite). But if you offload the vast majority of your traffic onto v6 (which is easier than it sounds, because most traffic is to a few big sites and most of them are v6-enabled) then you can reduce the number of connections you have to track by orders of magnitude, which saves you real money.
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by ThatPlayer on Thursday April 27, 2023 @04:32AM (#35724964)
Yeah I remember seeing that in a talk about an ISP adding IPv6 support: https://youtu.be/75h4gm7t1oI . They say that 30% of traffic is IPv6, which means 30% less CGNAT hardware needed.