Hetzner makes you pay 1 € per IPv4, while IPv6 is free. I'd gladly get rid of all IPv4's given that I have many servers.

> They've been requiring that iOS apps work on IPv6-only networks for close to 10 years now

This was at the behest of mobile network. E.g., T-Mobile US has 140M subscribers, and moved to IPv6-only many years ago:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA

The requirement is to support IPv6 only networks with IPv4 transition mechanisms. It does not preclude contacting v4-only servers.

If that's the case, how does the Github app work on iOS?

I with I knew how to get through that I want it. I'm supposed to be a tech guy - that means I need experience with the latest tech in my house

I worked at a place where they refused to run it _anywhere_ because a couple of people were insistent that it was “insecure”.

Yeah in Japan my ISP even lets me choose which IPv4 provider I want to use, as the fiber network is IPv6-native and IPv4 is "just another service" like IPTV.

No, it can level out below that and is (as the parent was saying).

This seems like wishful thinking. Python3 vs. Python2 seems different than IPv6 vs. IPv4.

“Gradually, then suddenly.”

ISPs in the US and Europe mostly have been offering IPv6 for a while now

In parts of the world with fewer IP addresses they already are. My ISP _only_ offers MAP-E access to the IPv4 internet for anyone not grandfathered into an older plan.

The big reason is that domestic ISPs don't want to switch (not just in the US, but everywhere really.)

Data centers and most physical devices made the jump pretty early (I don't recall a time where the VPS providers I used didn't allow for IPv6 and every device I've used has allowed IPv6 in the last 2 decades besides some retro handhelds), but domestic ISPs have been lagging behind. Mobile networks are switching en masse because of them just running into internal limits of IPv4.

Domestic ISPs don't have that pressure; unlike mobile networks (where 1 connection needing an IP = 1 device), they have an extra layer in place (1 connection needing an IP = 1 router and intranet), which significantly reduces that pressure.

The lifespan of domestic ISP provided hardware is also completely unbound by anything resembling a security patch cycle, cost amortization or value depreciation. If an ISP supplies a device, unless it fundamentally breaks to a point where it quite literally doesn't work anymore (basically hardware failure), it's going to be in place forever. It took over 10 years to kill WEP in favor of WPA on consumer grade hardware. To support IPv6, domestic ISP providers need to do a mass product recall for all their ancient tech and they don't want to do that, because there's no real pressure to do it.

IPv6 exists concurrently with IPv4, so it's easier for ISPs to make anyone wanting to host things pay extra for an IPv4 address (externalizing an ever increasing cost on sysadmins as the IP space runs out of addresses) rather than upgrade the underlying tech. The internet default for user facing stuff is still IPv4, not IPv6.

If you want to force IPv6 adoption, major sites basically need to stop routing over IPv4. Let's say Google becomes inaccessible over IPv4 - I guarantee you that within a year, ISPs will suddenly see a much greater shift towards IPv6.

> 1: it's hard to remember addresses

fd::1 is perfectly valid internal IPv6 address (along with fd::2 ... fd::n)

Has it been abysmally slow? What's the par time for migrating millions of independent networks, managed by as many independent uncoordinated administrators, to a new layer 3 protocol?

We've never done this before at this scale. Maybe this is just how long it takes?

Sure, the data plane supports it - but what about the management plane?

I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs did all the management tasks through a 30-year-old homebrew pile of technical debt, with lots of things relying on basic assumptions like "every connection has exactly one ip address, which is 32 bits long".

Porting all of that to support ipv6 can easily be a multi-year project.

> Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now

My home isp can't even do symmetrical gigabit, let alone ipv6...

Ignore all the excuses like longer addresses and incompatible hardware. The actual reason is that everyone hates change.

IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6.

For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean.

In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses are supposed to be withdrawn. So your hosts can end up with _no_ addresses. ULA was invented to solve this, but the source selection rules are STILL being debated: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-upda...

Then there's DHCP. With IPv4 the almost-universal DHCP serves as an easy way to do network inspection. With IPv6 there's literally _nothing_ similar. Stateful DHCPv6 is not supported on Android (because its engineers are hell-bent on preventing IPv6). And even when it's supported, the protocol doesn't require clients to identify themselves with a human-readable hostname.

Then there's IP fragmentation and PMTU that are a burning trash fire. Or the IPv6 extension headers. Or....

In short, there are VERY good reasons why IPv6 has been floundering.

In many developing countries IPv6 adoption is far and sometimes networks are IPv6-only, because IPv4 is expensive and they have relatively little addresses compared to users...

You can see southeast Asia is pretty green on the map of the post.

A UN priority!? They have real issues they should be dealing with like the life and death of millions of people

My OS gives me IPv6 privacy addresses out-the-box which rotate every few hours.