all of google's internal architecture was built with only IPv4.
Take a look at kubernetes, which is based on google's Borg. It's only now, slowly getting IPv6 support
Take a look at kubernetes, which is based on google's Borg. It's only now, slowly getting IPv6 support
I just think that there’s little demand on cloud (and tons of other high prior work)
There would be a lot of demand if IPv6 wasn't an "also ran", a "tack on", some checkbox to tick.
Think about how much network complexity would simply vanish if everything used only public routable IPv6 ranges.
No more split DNS. No more NAT gateways. No need for a separate "public IP" and "private IP". No need to carefully "carve up" the 10.x.x.x range to carefully avoid overlaps... even with future business partners. No need to worry about the "size" of subnets or accidentally running out of addresses in the cramped /24 subnets most people allocate.
It goes on and on.
And on.
But none of that is possible in the public cloud, because it is IPv4 first, and 99% IPv4 by default, and if there's IPv6 support, it's broken, or incomplete, or half-arsed.
(They still could do IPv6 proper - no argument there)
If the default security group for IPv6 only allows SSH and ICMPv6 to an instance/host, what difference does it make?
* https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-secu...
It's not the NATing that gives (internal) networks security, it's the stateful packet inspection at the gateway and--more and more--at the host level.
IPv4 NAT provides security as a side effect.
You don't need NAT for security.
PS: This is the #1 most common argument trotted out against IPv6, and it is blatantly false.
https://www.f5.com/services/resources/white-papers/the-myth-....
Obviously that doesn't make those machines secure, but an insecure machine that hasn't been exploited is better than an insecure machine that has.