| ▲ | runjake 6 hours ago |
| > still hasn't taken over the world Maybe not in the strict sense, but it kind of has. In the enterprises I've worked in the past decade with IPv6 running, at least 75% of the Internet traffic is IPv6. In my discussions with other engineers managing large networks, they seem to be seeing more or less that same figure. The problem is that virtually nobody knows IPv6. I regularly bring up IPv6 in engineers' circles and I'm often the only one who knows much about it. And so, I have doubts about it's long-term future, except for edge cases. I figure some clever scheme utilizing IPv4 and probably NAT will come around at some point. |
|
| ▲ | RiverCrochet 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| IPv4s are about to be bought, held, portfoilo'ed, speculated, and rented/mortgaged/sold like real estate. Companies like IPXO are already doing it. The costs of public IPv4's are going to go up for no technical reason because a new distinct ownership layer is springing up between you and the ISP. You're going to start renting them or paying a holder for the right to use them (on top of your ISP to transport it) at some point. And you can continue to do that, or get IPv6's for free. |
| |
| ▲ | wmf 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just to be pedantic, it's "illegal" to hoard IPv4 or to buy it for any purpose other than using it directly. But yeah, in the real world it may become more financialized than it already is. OTOH if prices keep dropping maybe they won't bother. | | |
| ▲ | malfist 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Ford Motor Company has both a /8 and a /9. They own over 16 million ip addresses. | |
| ▲ | throwaway894345 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Relatedly, I've been seeing some people buying up old domains and squatting on them with AI generated content. Not even ads, but content that seems like something that might actually show up in a rare Google search query. Not really sure what the play is or why this is better than advertising the domain for sale (do registrars punish overt squatting these days?). |
| |
| ▲ | runjake 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We own our own IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, which is nice. There already is a holder for the US: ARIN.net and I hear it's a pretty spendy annual fee for most orgs (we're legacy. we've had ours for decades) | |
| ▲ | stackghost 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How does one get an IPv6 allocation for free? Or, do you mean the ULA space? Because the latter doesn't really count. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You just ask your RIR. For example: https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv6/first_request/ | | |
| ▲ | stackghost 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Looks like that's only for organizations. Even "end users" have to meet the requirements: >Have an IPv4 assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessors >Intend to immediately be IPv6 multi-homed >Have 13 end sites (offices, data centers, etc.) within one year >Use 2,000 IPv6 addresses within one year >Use 200 /64 subnets within one year Seems like they discourage individuals from getting allocations for their own personal use. | | |
| ▲ | throawayonthe an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | right above that is says: "If you meet any of the criteria below, you qualify to receive IPv6 address space:" (emphasis added) | | |
| ▲ | stackghost an hour ago | parent [-] | | Unless they're very lax about what constitutes multi homed I meet zero of those requirements. Does me renting a server in a DC count as multi homing? Bridging my network to my friend's place over wireguard? Doubtful tbh |
| |
| ▲ | kazen44 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | this depends on your RIR. RIPE has far less strict requirements. | | | |
| ▲ | immibis 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah. If you're not an ISP or other LIR yourself, the correct path is to ask your ISP or a third-party ISP for a provider-independent allocation. This costs a nominal fee, about $50 per year. I only know anything about RIPE policies but I gather the PI address processes and fees are very similar between RIPE and ARIN. RIPE has many members that are willing to handle address allocations for the RIPE fee plus 20% (so 60€ per year) and without bundling any other services. | |
| ▲ | vel0city 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the end you're still just asking for a block, you don't pay for it. There are requirements which vary from RIR to RIR, sure, but there were requirements for requesting blocks in IPv4 as well originally. Ultimately, as a regular person requesting IPv6 space you'd just ask your ISP, which can get practically as much as they want for free by submitting these kinds of requests. Meanwhile, for IPv4 space they're going to have a harder and harder time getting you additional space and chances are be unwilling to give it free/cheap. | | |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > as a regular person requesting IPv6 space you'd just ask your ISP In real life these requests don't lead to IPv6 allocation, no matter how they're asked or how often. Here are a few of the responses I've received just this year. "At this time we are not able to provide a IPv6 unfortunately."
"We regret to inform you that, at this time, we do not offer IPv6 support."
"I wanted to inform you that IPv6 is currently not available"
My current ISP went as far as dumping their own IPv6 allocation. Three weeks ago it stopped being advertised in their ASN. Which I suppose is their way of telling me to stop asking.Past that: Over 15yrs of asking various ISPs (large and small) to make allocations available, none of us ever budged the IPv6 needle. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | almosthere 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Now all we need is for someone to make a crypto currency so you can fractionally own IPv4 addresses. | | |
| ▲ | runjake 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Presumably this would be port-based fractional and 443/tcp would cost a premium. | | |
| ▲ | almosthere an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I was thinking it was more of a "more than 50%" ownership controls the routing tables. Love the chaos. | |
| ▲ | RiverCrochet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's already possible to "split" a frontend HTTP server on a given IP and port to arbitrary backend IPs and ports via the Host header and reverse proxies. |
|
| |
| ▲ | iso1631 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | IPv4s have been bought and sold for years https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales Prices have been going down in nonimal terms for years, let alone real terms. In terms of investment they're a terrible asset. | | |
| ▲ | swinglock 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IPv6 and CGNAT growth has finally started to suppress IPv4 prices. There was a huge pump when hyperscalers decided they needed more. But IPv6 keeps growing and is the majority of traffic in many networks. If you own significantly more IPv4 addresses today than you need, I would dump them on the market yesterday. Spend some of the profits to move to IPv6 if still needed. | |
| ▲ | rr808 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | nice. I wish I could buy an address instead of renting from aws... | |
| ▲ | rahimnathwani 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It seems like the addresses cost about $20 each, and can be rented out for ~$5/year. That doesn't seem terrible. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cyberax an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Maybe not in the strict sense, but it kind of has. I challenge you to find: 1. A hotel in the US that provides IPv6. I have NEVER been in one, and I once stayed in a hotel (in Mountain View, CA) that was giving out public IPv4 addresses. 2. An easier task: a SIP provider that has IPv6 (in the US). You know, for the VoIP that is supposed to be a poster child of end-to-end connectivity. |
|
| ▲ | einpoklum 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > In the enterprises I've worked in the past decade with IPv6 running What about those without IPv6 running? Anyway, in the enterprises I've worked in the past decade - of course, another anecdote - not once has anyone ever specified an IPv6 address of anything. Inside the organization or outside of it. |
| |
| ▲ | elevation an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > not once has anyone ever specified an IPv6 address of anything. Inside the organization or outside of it. If you deploy IPv6 correctly, you shouldn't have to disclose IPv6 addresses to users inside or out -- DNS keeps the address literals abstract, hidden from users. | |
| ▲ | 123pie123 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | why would an enterprise turn to IPv6? everything fit's nicely in the 10.0.0.0/8 range in my many decades of enterprise infrastructure, no-one has ever mentioned IP6 either. why would they, whats the business case? | | |
| ▲ | throw0101a 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > everything fit's nicely in the 10.0.0.0/8 range Except during a merger/acquisition and both companies have 10.0.0.0/24 in their OSPF or IS-IS topology. | |
| ▲ | t_tsonev 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem with private address ranges is that everyone thinks they're available. In a large enough enterprise you're bound to have conflicts. They usually pop up at the most inconvenient time and suddenly you're cosplaying ARIN in your IT department. | |
| ▲ | patmorgan23 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unless you get to big. Or you merge with another company and have to combine your internal networks and oops, all the subnets are overlapping. Or you need to serve mobile clients who get better connectivity over v6. | |
| ▲ | alphager 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Grow large enough and you hit the limit pretty fast. NAT complicates things. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The best one is async routing. You have a NAT, they have a NAT, you VPN together and think you have different IP address ranges, but unknown to the operator there's a little internal network with an overlap at the end of some slow line that is now getting flooded with internal traffic that's trying to go to a completely different network. |
| |
| ▲ | baq 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you haven't had to set up intercompany vpns I see | | |
| ▲ | einpoklum 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Indeed I have not. But I suspect most people, and most companies, have not either. I don't claim IPv6 isn't used anywhere, or even that it's not used a lot. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pretty much every fortune 500 company does, which counts for millions of people on their networks every day. The troubleshooting calls for VPN routing vs internal LAN routing are fun endeavors of who is actually willing to take responsibility for things they don't understand. | | |
| ▲ | formerly_proven an hour ago | parent [-] | | Somehow still easier than v6. | | |
| ▲ | p_l 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I've spent half a year getting nowhere on a discussion involving VPN-ing parts of the company just to have connectivity for specific services where part of the problem was lots and lots of overlapping 10./8 allocations - partially because everyone setting a "VPC" or some local dc network was doing individual 10./8, often "in name of simplicity". With subnetting needs, possibly dealing with VPNs to other networks that might use 10./8, ISPs that might use 10./8 instead of CGNAT space (100.64./10), even the total incompetence of some contractors was not reducing how IPv4 was a problem. And that's before you hit the part where Microsoft products have been IPv6 First since ~2008 and there are entire feature sets that are very interesting to bigger companies (like well integrated always-on vpn for laptops) that require working v6 |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | if both you and companies you have site to site vpn with have IPv6 there is no IP conflict or NAT to worry about.... and that's about end of the advantages | |
| ▲ | arccy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | one poorly made decision and oops you're out of 10/8 addresses if you've never run in to this, then sorry, you've not been in an enterprise, you're in a mom 'n pop shop cosplaying as enterprise. |
| |
| ▲ | almosthere 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am on my company's VPN right now and I get a 0/10 at test-ipv6.com |
|
|
| ▲ | gsich 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >Maybe not in the strict sense, but it kind of has. >In the enterprises I've worked in the past decade with IPv6 running, at least 75% of the Internet traffic is IPv6. Nobody cares about those. What matters is if my device has an IPv6 address assigned. |
| |
| ▲ | iknowstuff 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok then: most people in the US do. The rest of the world is looking increasingly ipv6 too: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...
India is 71% IPv6 (probably thanks to Jio), China has it in its 5 year plan, Europe is doing well, etc | | |
| ▲ | MBCook 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wasn’t it mandated for 4G? Or at least 5G? | | |
| ▲ | p_l 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | IIRC LTE had licensing shenanigans which made v6-only cheaper, and 5G doubled down on them |
|
| |
| ▲ | MBCook 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > at least 75% of the Internet traffic is IPv6. > Nobody cares about [that]. What matters is if my device has an IPv6 address assigned. This seems to be the weird dichotomy in these comments. Some people are arguing from the position that is absolutely everywhere and is doing great. Others are saying since their machine doesn’t show it it’s dead and no one cares. Is there a term for this? A successful failure? A failed success? Kind of odd. | | |
|
