ipv6_or_nat
I sincerely wish the US would try a stunt like this, if not for anything else then for the entertainment aspect. I emphatically don’t think it would work out as you’d expect.
And who exactly are you forcing? Now it’s ISPs, in your previous comment is was websites.
Anyway, it’s not enough to force one participant. If you are going IPv6-only by decree, you have to replace all end user devices too.
Who is going to pay for all the new routers, game consoles, nanny cams, etc? I’m sure that container ships’ worth of PS5s is going to go well over in the appropriations committee.
The truth is, it’s too late in the game for an IPv6 flag day. Too many people and too much money involved.
Waste and chaos matter. Or how is your pandemic going?
As to the RIR fee thing, yeah, you are right about the ARIN thing. It differs by RIR and region, tho.
You are wrong about the allocation thing, tho. You can get new IPv4 allocations, even in ARINland, by joining the waitlist or to support a IPv6 deployment.
I can just about imagine the shitstorm and political blowback that would entail.
Even just forcing IPv6 support would be a tough row to hoe.
Without any hard data and like-to-like comparisons, the most that can be said is that IPv4 and IPv6 have different routing policies and this may attribute the differences in latency. As such what and where you test will affect your results.
That being said, Apple’s IPv6 policy is probably the best thing being done to encourage adoption.
However, they are not adopting the policy due to performance reasons, but due to necessity given who their ultimate customers are (cell phone companies).
IPv6-only as a term has been heavily abused. A truly IPv6-only network has no access to IPv4 resources. If it does, it isn’t really IPv6-only and relies upon IPv4 addresses and NAT to work.
Geoff’s article on TCAM exhaustion is almost 10 years old. No BGP router in the default free zone has had a 512k route limit in years. Modern routers typically scale to millions of routes.
The incident in question was the result of misconfiguration and/or ISPs trying to run old routers past their usable life.
The whole thing was completely avoidable and not related to IPv4 vs IPv6 forwarding performance.
As to the IPv6 latency article, it can best be summarized as IPv6 sometimes has lower latency than IPv4, except when it doesn’t.
In no shape, way or form does the article claim that IPv6 forwarding performance is better than IPv4 forwarding performance.
There’s some hand waving about NAT, but it also notes that increasing the number of NAT levels improved latency!
The simplest explanation is that the differences come down to different routing policies in IPv4 and IPv6. Thus it depends on where you stand as to what you see.
However, as I stated previously, they are only for niche uses such as hobby projects or internal services, not for use by the general public.
They will remain so until IPv6 reaches critical mass.
How many cents per month will make you or anybody care?
ISPs don’t even pay for the majority of their bandwidth, they get it for free via settlement free peering. Where’s the rebate going to come from that?
On the fraction of bandwidth ISPs pay for, the wholesale rates are less than 5 cents per Mbps. On average a subscriber uses a few Mbps on average.
Would 15 cents per month really motivate you to go all in on IPv6?
On average bandwidth costs for an ISP are single digit percentages or less of all costs. Even if their wholesalers would fully discount all their IPv6 traffic (why would they do that?!) there’s only so much there to work with.
What I want to know is do all these studies take into consideration the “happy eyeballs” algorithm that prefers IPv6 over IPv4 in web browser requests, thus delaying the IPv4 request?
>It will probably not be the hosting company paying for the IPv4, but rather it will be the end customer, and they may not want to pay.
Of coarse it will be the hosting company paying for the IPv4 addresses as they will be the ones owning them.
Of coarse the end customers will complain and not want to pay, but pay they will as they have no other choice.
It’s neither here nor there whether the end customers run IPv4 or IPv6 internally, it’s the public IPv4 addresses that matter.
I’m also going to humor you on the IPv6-only thing. Can you actually point to a single ISP that is even considering IPv6-only?
You cannot just deploy IPv6, take your IPv4 ball and go home.
ISPs will still need those IPv4 addresses, no matter how much they cost. ISPs may delay by deploying CGNAT, but once those IPv4 addresses run out there is no other option than to get out your checkbook or scale back your business.
Likewise with hosters. There is no choice but to use IPv4, damn the cost. It simply isn’t viable to go IPv6-only, as IPv4 is where the money/customers are.
This will not change until IPV6 somehow reaches critical mass.
The linked article isn’t as ambitious as to claim IPv6-only government networks by 2023, only that new systems should support IPv6 by 2023.
I’d also be very surprised if the government was able to hit any of the IPv6-only targets put forth in the article.
To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to be a real need for IPv6 and/or a revenue driver.
Very large ISPs and mobile carriers need IPv6 because they are simply running out of IPv4 addresses, even non-public IPv4 addresses!
This still does not mean they can go IPv6-only, they still need IPv4 and translation technologies to reach the Internet.
The core problem of IPv6 adoption is that insensitive do not align across the whole Internet ecosystem.
A large carrier could even use IPv6 as a competitive moat by offering/sponsoring/investing in popular local IPv6-only services.
Competitor’s customers would be locked out because they don’t have IPv6, not because they were blocked. Kinda hard for competitors to cry foul to the regulator, since the only reason their customers can’t reach the service is that they themselves haven’t been keeping up with the times.