AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and speed up IPv6 adoption

Re:AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and ... by krupan on Friday February 02, 2024 @02:06PM (#39232799)

People, IPv6 was introduced 28 years ago! For some reason it is not catching on and probably never will. Let’s try something else.

EDIT: my take on IPv6 is this. In the early 2000’s I wanted to run a web server at home. Figuring out how to make my $10 gateway/router do port forwarding was hard. IPv6 sounded like the right solution. Now… none of those problems really exist

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and ... by hcarvalhoalves on Friday February 02, 2024 @02:57PM (#39233393)

> For some reason it is not catching on and probably never will.

If a major player is making $1B out of it "not catching on", I agree it never will.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and ... by krupan on Saturday February 03, 2024 @11:54AM (#39242145)

So that started very recently in the history of IPv6, no? And if IPv6 is so awesome, how are they convincing people to pay for IPv4??

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and ... by Dagger2 on Saturday February 03, 2024 @12:47PM (#39242787)

...network effects? There are still people with legacy v4-only clients, which can never reach anything other than v4, or on v4-only ISPs. There are enough of them at the moment that we still need to support them. This isn't hard to figure out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and ... by jazzyjackson on Friday February 02, 2024 @02:20PM (#39232952)

64 bits is too many bits. honestly could have slapped a country+area code in front and gained a few hundred IPv4 addresses per person.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AWS charge for using IPv4 expected to bring $1B/year and ... by lajamerr on Friday February 02, 2024 @02:30PM (#39233064)

128 bits*

[ Parent | on HN ]