Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

How many of those are Mobile?

And how many of those mobile ipv6 addresses are communicating with the "real" internet through a carrier grade NAT to translate/intermediate with IPV4 servers/addresses?

And about the most offensive, disgusting thing to ipv6 people is the NAT. It's the thorn in their side that 1) IPV6 "trivially" solves (allegedly) but even worse 2) it's what keeps ipv4 on life support with the ISPs.

Can some ipv6 person tell me with a straight face that mobiles being ipv6 behind a huge cgnat is "success"?

So the fact that the big success story of ipv6 is all enabled by a huge massive NAT is ... morbidly hilarious.

So that actually means that most "regular internet" HAVEN'T adopted it, a statistic meant to show good uptake actually shows the real problem. The ISPs for cable/internet, Despite huge huge monopoly-protected revenues, aren't doing anything at all.

Again, as a programmer, I would like to work with static IPs. NATs suck, ipv4 sucks, private addresses vs public addresses suck. If not for the condescending, ivory tower, shove-down-throat, bungled incompetent planning, utter lack of outreach and transition planning, an addres transition plan (per the MX + A guy's thesis), I would love ipv6. I WANT A STATIC IP. EVERY PROGRAMMER WANTS A STATIC IP. We don't want to think about all the ipv4 bullshit.

The failure is with the ipv6 mafia. They failed. They keep failing. And based on everything they say and their representatives, they will continue to fail.

Too much of the web is mobile these days to be dismissing it.

Yes, mobiles on v6-only with NAT64 to reach legacy v4 hosts is a massive success story. How can you say with a straight face that it's not?

Most big landline ISPs in the US are doing v6. Comcast, the poster child for awful ISPs, winner of multiple worst company in America awards, has been running v6 over their entire network for years now.

Because you should talk to an ipv6 person and say the word "NAT". They froth at the mouth.

It IS a success, but it's a success that is singularly enabled by the #1 thing that ipv6 people hate with a passion: a NAT. The evil NAT that has kept IPV4 address space alive, that was the crutch that kept ipv6 from being adopted earlier. The evil NAT isn't a firewall, the evil NAT can be replaced by string-of-acronyms.

And, it's a success which paves the way for practically any protocol to replace ipv6 as the real successor, like the casually thrown out ipv4.4++v2, which is getting dismissed right and left by the ipv6 people here. Or god forbid a better protocol. Please give me ipv8.

Not that I was in the room, but it's apparent that the mobile success is due to the fact the cartel of phone makers and spectrum owners/mobile carriers got in a room and adopted ipv6 head to toe.

I would like to know if the FCC had a role here, or it's just that the mobile carrier industry is used to adopting new standards so this wasn't a big deal, or it was the OEMs that enforced/enabled it.

For the rest of ipv4-land, where is this cooperation/regulation/coordination for migrating?

My comcast modems do not support ipv6 last I tried, but that was three years ago. Maybe the magic wand has been waved finally. But I look at this thread and think: Eh, nope.

No need for conspiracies - see for example the presentations from T-Mobile to nanog: https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/... and https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas..., just for two examples after thirty seconds of googling.

Comcast has had ipv6 support rolled out for some time now. I don’t know why you don’t see it.

Mobile carriers want v6 because it saves them money. CGNAT capacity is expensive. Having native v6 means that >50% of your traffic won't need to touch the CGNAT, which reduces your costs significantly.

NAT is a necessary evil to deal with address space exhaustion in v4. NAT64 is just another application of that. In v6, when not dealing with backwards compatibility to v4, NAT is an unnecessary evil. Do you see the difference?

> And, it's a success which paves the way for practically any protocol to replace ipv6 as the real successor, like the casually thrown out ipv4.4++v2, which is getting dismissed right and left by the ipv6 people here.

It's being dismissed because it brings nothing new to the table. The people casually throwing out alternatives aren't thinking through them enough to realize that they've either come up with something that doesn't work, or they've come up with something that's basically v6 and has the same limitations v6 does. There's zero point in replacing v6 -- which 40% of the Internet's clients are already using -- with another protocol that's just as hard to deploy.

Plenty of cable/fibre ISPs use IPv6, but it varies by country.

In the UK, the two largest providers have been running IPv6 for years (BT and Sky), that's about 55% of the market.

Virgin and TalkTalk are ignoring it, that's a further 25%.

Vodafone are working on it ("next year due to Covid"), 5%.

The remaining 20% is small ISPs, and many of these support it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com