News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by JohnFen on Thursday April 27, 2023 @04:59PM (#35734489)
> Phone carriers are responsible for a lot because they had nowhere near enough IPv4 capacity

Precisely so.

> all browsers use Happy Eyeballs and it tends to pick IPv6 because it’s often faster.

I know. This sort of thing causes me trouble every so often. I wish I could make browsers not do that.

Re:Thinking about our passive exposure to IPv6 issues by acdha on Thursday April 27, 2023 @07:30PM (#35735814)
I’m not sure there’s a better option: too many network operators are asleep at the switch and you’ll find networks where IPv6 works but v4 is subtly broken or vice versa. Asking nicely won’t get the stragglers to upgrade so what we probably need are economic incentives: as IPv6 becomes more common, providers charging for IPv4 is a good prod.

The most important thing is probably just pushing equipment vendors to set better defaults since that’s what a disturbing number of places will be using.