HN user
the global burn rate was 4-6 weeks for a /8, iirc
but there are waitlists to fulfill, so...you're probably still right.
(tl;dr: "repatriate the poorly allocated legacy ip space" is a losing proposition)
Edit regarding World IPv6 day. I must be thinking of June 6, 2012: "This time, it's for real."
world ipv6 day (24 hours) was in 2011.
world ipv6 launch (turn it on & leave it on) was in 2012.
(ppl mix the two up all the time, understandably!)
I could see doing IPv6+IPv4 in a corporation and terminate everything on load balancers, allowing anything behind the LB to be any combination of IPv4/IPv6. But IPv6 only? I don't see any big companies doing that in my lifetime.
facebook started migrating to ipv6-only datacenters in 2014 or so. i think all of them are converted at this point. they only support legacy ip at their network edge, & use siit (iirc) to facilitate access.
derp yes
this sounds like a valid argument for deploying ipv6 wherever you can, tbqh
cgnat is only going to get MORE common, globally
Part of the motivation for this was to use (mostly) unique MAC addresses (48 bits) as your identifier and that fits in 64 bits. Of course this became a massive PII leak and a tracker's dream so it never happened but we're still stuck with /64 blocks that we absoultely do not need.
please read about rfc4941 privacy extensions & how prevalent their use is before continuing to regurgitate decade-old, outdated privacy alarmism about MaC aDdReSsEs.
ipv6-only web sites are borderline nonexistant, because no one who needs to maintain a profit dares to cut off a revenue stream from legacy ip only users (yet).
the most exhaustive list thus far is https://sites.ip-update.net/ afaik
I don't see any "dash" to support v6 in our future, when the option to just keep working around issues with v4 is so much easier and cheaper in the moment.
30-40% global adoption in ~10 years may or may not be a "dash", but it's also not nothing.
"easier and cheaper" is very much not the case at larger scale. legacy ip space is only growing more expensive, & cgnat platforms are not cheap. even if a carrier HAS TO deploy cgnat, deploying ipv6 first means you don't need to buy cgnat capacity for any v6-native traffic (which is a non trivial volume)
Really, what does anyone have to gain by switching to v6?
the above, & also a future-proofed, infinitely scalable network. any org's that do alot of m&a don't have to play as many stupid rfc1918 integration games.
if you don't deal w/ scale, yea, hard to see the benefits. fair.
okay - how about a few other angles?
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ - per-country, and within a country, per-asn eyeball statistics, collected from online ads - not just mobile!
https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country - per-country, albeit with a mobile-heavier bias (as you hint)
https://www.akamai.com/internet-station/cyber-attacks/state-... - collected from their content delivery network - tends to show lower adoption than the other metrics
i would point out that "all mobile phones have IPv6" isn't true globally, but it is the reality in some countries, yes.
by what definition would you call ipv6 "mostly a failure"? 30-40% global eyeball network (to the end user) adoption after ~10 years of active deployment, against very vocal opposition seems commendable enough to me.
it's the default behaviour by most cpe, correct
any exceptions to this should be roasted (my twitter dm's are open)
those of us who want to have the same port on different computers available to the internet might see that as a bad thing
It was relevant then -and it is relevant now- because there are good lessons in how to migrate from thing A to thing B, even if some of the then-missing necessary bits are in place now.
it's irrelevant now because there are smoother approaches to migrating to future-proofed networks than existed at the time. the fact that it persists on the internet, unamended, to be regularly presented (two decades later) as some semblance of current realities of the challenges to ipv6 deployment is a disservice to the internet.
Still, it's almost certainly the case that DJB's rant had no real effect, and that the necessary steps were bound to be taken as the cost of sticking with IPv4 rose.
i would maintain that "ipv6mess" had a NEGATIVE impact on ipv6 adoption overall, as people who saw djb as a tech god accepted his word as gospel, despite it fundamentally being a crybaby rant, & proliferated the misconceptions & opposition therein.
the fact that he explicitly rejected ipv6 patches to qmail & djbdns (resulting in a fork to at least qmail) should not be understated - he didn't just complain about ipv6, he actively sought to undermine its adoption.
is the 22+% ipv6 adoption in .no all mobile? (honest question - i don't know)
& for "at scale" - how about 100,000,000 users?
https://twitter.com/iPv4depletion/status/1584376525427978240
afaik jool is the currently-recommended foss nat64 (since tayga is apparently unmaintained)
alot of commercial vendors have mature nat64 implementations tho
is "not supporting IPv6 at all" a data-backed statement?
47.57% of observed requests coming out of as14593 is ipv6, as of two days ago: https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879
& to be clear, that is CRAZY growth!
edit: that's traffic to monitoring resources, not in general, sorry /facepalm
anyone who thinks "ipv6mess" is still relevant in 2022, doesn't understand the problem space it describes.
part 1, interoperability failure/incompatibility: nat64+dns64 has been viable since 2008
part 2, incoherence: dual-stack was the transition plan, & was clearly communicated from the start (to anyone who listened). that turned out to not be so effective since so many ppl ignored the realities of legacy ip depletion. at this juncture ipv6-only (w/ nat64) is becoming a more preferable approach, since you only need to maintain a single protocol in the majority of your environment (as evidenced by org's like tmobile us, facebook, etc).
part 3, distractions: one could argue that rants like "ipv6mess" are the biggest distractions to ipv6 deployment.
"no one is asking for ipv6" is a lie writ large in the provider space; i've seen plenty of examples where a provider has told multiple customers "you're the first person to ask for ipv6 support!" - the problem being is that most org's don't actually keep track of such requests in a unified place, & so every customer is pushing for it alone, so far as the provider is concerned.
hey, sorry i didn’t respond. i may have read the reply & gotten drunk. hard to say.
1. why would you add the extra step of using a “v4-mapped v6 address” if you’re just going to end up using regular ones?
3. if you have ipv6 but that google link shows a legacy ip address, your ipv6 connectivity is broken somehow. you’re not behind some sort of weird nat66, are you?
6. that’s getting less true with every passing year, thankfully
1. what? i thought the idea was that the v6 space be based on the legacy ip space? how would you “drop this” if that was what you were using?
2. that’s what ipv6-only w/ nat64 is for (thank goodness)
3. i’m not sure this is the flex you think it is: https://twitter.com/noipv6/status/1575662492063174656
4. okay?
5. okay
6. that people are “used to” dotted decimal ip addresses just means ppl can learn arbitrary things. there’s nothing inherently more natural about legacy ip addresses than ipv6 addresses.
7. enterprises that need/want ipv6 are deploying ipv6. source: my job
8. okay
9. this almost sounds like 6rd fwiw
=D
1. legacy ip allocations are a huge mess, largely due to growth - mirroring that haphazard, patchwork allocation model for ipv6 would be obscenely inefficient & make the v6 dfz table as bad as the legacy ip counterpart
2. as much as 41% of the world already has ipv6 - why should they not continue what they’re doing?
3. “Not only is v4 still around, but the phrase "IP address" is generally understood to mean v4.” no, that’s really not a thing.
4. “Say a device's IPv4 address is 71.177.17.171 (seriously I used to have this one). Maybe I also get v6 address 2345:0425:2CA1:::0567:5673:23b5.” …what? how did you get from point a to point b? i would have expected something containing 47 b1 11 ab but…what?
5. “Even making it a longer octal like 71.177.17.171.77.111.11.11 would've been easier for most people.” that’s…not octal. an octal representation of that ip would be 107 261 21 253 which is…not really an improvement, i don’t think?
6. “When I mentioned this to some network expert colleagues over lunch (I'm no expert), they each said, the human-unfriendly v6 addresses are a feature to encourage use of DNS within an enterprise system.” the idea of hexadecimal addresses is intended to be more user-friendly than a long string of unnecessarily verbose octets like 251.82.40.105.0.49.61.129.87.46.0.0.31.96.255 . should you be using dns? sure - but you also should be using it for legacy ip. can you memorize legacy ip addresses? yes. can many ppl also memorize ipv6 addresses? also yes. should either of those things be standard practice? no - there are better uses for brain cells.
7. “The common enterprise workaround is predictable.” no, it’s not. nat46 is rarely used. nat64 is much, much more common. (the common enterprise “workaround” is “stonewall on ipv6 as long as possible.”)
8. “Humans should even represent such padded v6 address in the v4 octal notation;” oh. there’s the problem: legacy ip addresses aren’t octal, they’re decimal. have you genuinely never seen a legacy ip address containing an 8 or 9? wait. do you know what octal is? (also, there’s an octet missing from my example two points above. did you notice?)
9. “Slow adoption has usually been blamed on old systems, but I'm getting tired of that explanation.” i’m getting tired of harebrained THIS IS HOW WE SHOULD OF DONE IPV6 theories that are 20+ years too late, but here we are.
ndp in ipv4 is called "arp" =D
6to4 has been de-preferenced by most operating systems.
what isps provide 6to4 tunnels, or even 6in4 tunnels (which i can only assume you meant?)
(agreed on the proxying point, you'd have to explicitly trust the proxy operator)