Hacker News Reader

> Why did Cisco even bother to make network equipment that doesn't support IPv6?

The same reason credit-card payment terminal people sold almost-EMV terminals to retailers in the US around 2010-2015: so their customers will come back 5 years later needing another upgrade to something they should have bought originally.

Unfortunately this sounds highly plausible. :(

ISP says there's no demand for IPv6 addresses. There's no demand because other people don't have them. Others don't have them because ISPs don't issue them.

It's not circular logic, it's no loose ends.

Reminds me of a story in The Dragon Book. (compiler design book from the 1970s) FORTRAN IV doesn't (didn't) allow arrays with more than three dimensions. Because programmers didn't write programs using arrays with more than three dimensions. Programmers didn't write programs using arrays with more than three dimensions because the compiler didn't allow arrays with more than three dimensions.

I imagine if you only have IPv6 then some parts of the internet will stop working, and customers will then blame the ISP. I can see why ISPs keep the status quo when it probably costs them very little to do so.

Eh, in Germany most ISPs will only give you DSLite for new contracts - Dual Stack Lite where you only get a NATed private IPv4 address but full IPv6 connectivity.

My contract is from 2014, no IPv6 at all, but also a real IP and not behind a CGNAT. Kabel Deutschland/Vodafone business account (which is available for everyone and doesn’t mention anything about NAT)

It’s coming. I’m Unitymedia/Vodafone and I’ve been behind CGNAT for about two years now.

Yeah, they make you either get DS-lite or, for a bit more, pure IPv4 (where you don't get any IPv6).

I had DSLite and it sucked because games like Terraria don't support ipv6.

I just googled Terraria IPv6 and this is the first result I got:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Terraria/comments/cytn2w/terraria_p...

Yeah, people ask you why you are using IPv6 as if ISP customers get to make that decision...

IPv4 can be addressed from an IPv6 only device when an ISP configures their network with the feature, many mobile phone providers already have fully IPv6 networks: https://www.sidn.nl/en/news-and-blogs/australias-telstra-swi...

Nah. My home internet is originally Dual-Stack lite IPv6 mainly with IPv4 being tunneled over an Enterprise-like NAS (so my outgoing IPv4 connections share the address with other users).

I just switched to full dual stack (by leasing a static IPv4 address from my provider) to be able to handle incoming connections for my VPN. As long as you don't want to host anything on IPv4, dual stack lite is fine.

I think both Sprint and T-Mobile have been assigning handing out IPv6 to end devices for a couple of years now. A much smaller NAT64 pool of IPv4 addresses is used for customers trying to reach v4 resources. Of course this would break self hosted things on v4 but that's still a better state than what CGNAT from various carriers is giving people at home (i.e. broken inbound v4 and no v6 at all).

There will never be an ipv6 only internet while there is an ipv4 only internet. ISPs will just CGNAT 10,000 users through one ipv4 address. An ipv4 address will be something like a post code where everyone in the same city/area gets the same address.

> This is beyond stupid, of cause there's no demand, the average user isn't even demanding an IPv4 address.

In other words: the demand is for connectivity--or rather the services being connect gives you, like the ability to view YouTube videos and see tweets--not for addresses.