Excuse me. Zero nines. Or two nines if you relax your definition of where they are in the number. https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/116334321751266751

Personally I’d look for the coveted 5 eights uptime.

You guys have nines?

More importantly, it doesn’t support uptime well.

One of the big challenges with IPv6 remains that many of the knows-just-enough-about-networking people, like support staff, often never received any IPv6 training (or, for that matter, even enough IPv4 training that they don't need to Google things that come up in real life). Another is that the weird, awful, everyone-hostile corporate "solutions" often break IPv6 in stupid ways (like load balancers and logging tools being unable to cope with minor changes and requiring a full configuration rework).

Things have definitely gotten better over time, though. The massive 90s style corporate networks will probably never transition, but smaller and more modern companies don't have that issue.

Apple mandating that apps are IPv6 compatible and various government legislation forcing companies to make their shitty middleware IPv6-compatible has improved things quite a bit so far. As uptake keeps rising, the need for technologies like STUN and TURN will slowly start decreasing, and as a result more and more people will end up in "untested" situations where not having IPv6 and falling back to legacy paths starts becoming a problem.

Facebook is (AIUI) 100% IPv6-only on their internal network, and has been for many years:

* https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering...

* https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2014/09/facebook-launch...

IPv4 is actually the "leftover" stuff they have to deal with at the front end.

But they are an eye-balls heavy service, with a lot of mobile devices, which also tend to be IPv6-native.

IPv4 is going to be a necessity for many many decades no matter what Microsoft do. Even when IPv6 is at 99%, people aren't going to want 1 in every 100 people to not be able to access their site at all. It'll need to be like 99.9% before we start seeing serious IPv6-only services.

... But that's no different from IPv4. Sometimes you have one per user, sometimes there are ~1000 users per IP.

Most of the ipv4 world is now behind CGNAT, one user per ip is simply a wrong assumption.

> Outdated beliefs probably. When I talk about v6 support in our b2b saas, PM laughs and says nobody uses that shit.

Nobody except the 140M subscribers on T-Mobile US's network:

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

But sure, be IPv4-only and add latency by forcing traffic through an extra translation box.

It's because big tech is USA based mostly, where there's still a glut of ipv4 available.

Definitely not for the biggest ones. Google and Meta have so many machines in their data centers that IPv6 addressing becomes a technical necessity due to the risk of exhausting the RFC 1918 address space. Naturally, they were early adopters of IPv6.

How does IP bans work in IPv6 case? One just blocks whole /64 or /56 address range?

Or the most likely more expensive rate limiting (computational wise)