noipv6

5 ms·

1.
by noipv6 4y ago
the global burn rate was 4-6 weeks for a /8, iirc but there are waitlists to fulfill, so...you're probably still right. (tl;dr: "repatriate the poorly allocated legacy ip space" is a losing proposition)
2.
by noipv6 4y ago
> Edit regarding World IPv6 day. I must be thinking of June 6, 2012: "This time, it's for real." world ipv6 day (24 hours) was in 2011. world ipv6 launch (turn it on & leave it on) was in 2012. (ppl mix the two up all
3.
by noipv6 4y ago
> I could see doing IPv6+IPv4 in a corporation and terminate everything on load balancers, allowing anything behind the LB to be any combination of IPv4/IPv6. But IPv6 only? I don't see any big companies doing that in my lifeti
4.
by noipv6 4y ago
derp yes https://whynoipv6.com/
5.
by noipv6 4y ago
this sounds like a valid argument for deploying ipv6 wherever you can, tbqh cgnat is only going to get MORE common, globally
6.
by noipv6 4y ago
> Part of the motivation for this was to use (mostly) unique MAC addresses (48 bits) as your identifier and that fits in 64 bits. Of course this became a massive PII leak and a tracker's dream so it never happened but we're sti
7.
by noipv6 4y ago
ipv6-only web sites are borderline nonexistant, because no one who needs to maintain a profit dares to cut off a revenue stream from legacy ip only users (yet). the most exhaustive list thus far is https://sites.ip-update.net&#x2
8.
by noipv6 4y ago
> I don't see any "dash" to support v6 in our future, when the option to just keep working around issues with v4 is so much easier and cheaper in the moment. 30-40% global adoption in ~10 years may or may not be a "da
9.
by noipv6 4y ago
okay - how about a few other angles? https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ - per-country, and within a country, per-asn eyeball statistics, collected from online ads - not just mobile! https://www.facebook.com&
10.
by noipv6 4y ago
by what definition would you call ipv6 "mostly a failure"? 30-40% global eyeball network (to the end user) adoption after ~10 years of active deployment, against very vocal opposition seems commendable enough to me.
11.
by noipv6 4y ago
it's the default behaviour by most cpe, correct any exceptions to this should be roasted (my twitter dm's are open)
12.
by noipv6 4y ago
those of us who want to have the same port on different computers available to the internet might see that as a bad thing
13.
by noipv6 4y ago
> It was relevant then -and it is relevant now- because there are good lessons in how to migrate from thing A to thing B, even if some of the then-missing necessary bits are in place now. it's irrelevant now because there are smooth
14.
by noipv6 4y ago
is the 22+% ipv6 adoption in .no all mobile? (honest question - i don't know) https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/NO
15.
by noipv6 4y ago
& for "at scale" - how about 100,000,000 users? https://twitter.com/iPv4depletion/status/1584376525427978240
16.
by noipv6 4y ago
afaik jool is the currently-recommended foss nat64 (since tayga is apparently unmaintained) alot of commercial vendors have mature nat64 implementations tho
17.
by noipv6 4y ago
is "not supporting IPv6 at all" a data-backed statement? https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ fwiw
18.
by noipv6 4y ago
47.57% of observed requests coming out of as14593 is ipv6, as of two days ago: https://twitter.com/noIPv6/status/1600527249282895879 & to be clear, that is CRAZY growth! edit: that's traffic to monitoring
19.
by noipv6 4y ago
anyone who thinks "ipv6mess" is still relevant in 2022, doesn't understand the problem space it describes. part 1, interoperability failure/incompatibility: nat64+dns64 has been viable since 2008 part 2, incoherence: dua
20.
by noipv6 4y ago
hey, sorry i didn’t respond. i may have read the reply & gotten drunk. hard to say. 1. why would you add the extra step of using a “v4-mapped v6 address” if you’re just going to end up using regular ones? 3. if you have ipv6 but that go
21.
by noipv6 4y ago
1. what? i thought the idea was that the v6 space be based on the legacy ip space? how would you “drop this” if that was what you were using? 2. that’s what ipv6-only w/ nat64 is for (thank goodness) 3. i’m not sure this is the flex yo
22.
by noipv6 4y ago
1. legacy ip allocations are a huge mess, largely due to growth - mirroring that haphazard, patchwork allocation model for ipv6 would be obscenely inefficient & make the v6 dfz table as bad as the legacy ip counterpart 2. as much as 41%
23.
by noipv6 7y ago
ndp in ipv4 is called "arp" =D
24.
by noipv6 7y ago
6to4 has been de-preferenced by most operating systems. what isps provide 6to4 tunnels, or even 6in4 tunnels (which i can only assume you meant?) (agreed on the proxying point, you'd have to explicitly trust the proxy operator)