Hacker News Reader

That's not how it works.

A single ISP can't do anything about the situation. They can provide IPv6 to their customers, but they still need IPv4 so their customers so they have a usable internet connection. It doesn't help them at all.

Which is part of the problem here: As long as IPv6 is not implemented by everybody the people who do implement it have no advantage.

View on HN

An ISP probably already has IPv4 addresses, but needs more addresses for basic connectivity. They can become IPv6-only and then use their IPv4 block/s for CGNAT. The money would go to either buying more addresses or more CGNAT.

This is how a lot of mobile/cell telcos already work. A T-Mobile presentation from 2018 (PDF):

* https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/...

Running an IPv6 core and offering IPv4-as-a-service doesn’t really make you IPv6-only.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Here's a dude from T-Mobile explaining how they have (in 2017) over ten million end-customer devices without any IPv4 addresses assigned:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE

For reaching services that are IPv6 only they use(d) DNS64 (with and without 464XLAT).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com