[tcd]

> At this point it seems to me it’s more of a nice to have than a requirement.

Except for the fact that, you know, we've _literally_ ran out of addresses bar a very, very limited supply? And that _billions_ of people won't be able to access the internet as a result?

I can only imagine we'll be this complacent with things like oil, or plastic pollution or anything. Only acting when it's _far_ too late. Every ISP around the world should have pledged IPv6 20 years ago, but some are _still_ not starting today!

You may think you're fine because you are able to access ycombinator.com and leave your message, but imagine how many people simply cannot access the v4 network due to address shortages.

[nateguchi]

ISPs can always (and sometimes do) use NAT, Then they only need a few IPs. I know most mobile providers do this.

[tcd]

That is absolutely, entirely useless and a completely stupid way of prolonging the demise of IPv4; CGN doesn't help in regards to you wanting an IPv4 for your next billion-dollar project which may require several v4's for all the different layers (because most web apps are not that simple these days).

So sure, sharing an IP amongst many people may help a little, but we've already ran out _today_. There are people living right now that will _never_ be able to access the internet or make a website because of this.

One example: Digital Ocean have a cap on the number of servers they can run at one time due to the fact each droplet gets a unique v4.

V4 is dead, time for money to be spent in the right places :)

[acdha]

I agree in general but web apps are IMO the weakest argument because while they may have a number of components only the load-balancer should be public — those hundreds of microservices shouldn’t be exposed to the public or other customers at the same data center anyway.

I’d generally focus on the cost of losing P2P and the continuing rise in the number of devices the average person uses.

[hungerstrike]

> There are people living right now that will _never_ be able to access the internet or make a website because of this.

Well, if that's the only problem then I think we can tone down the sense of urgency because 1) there are much, much bigger problems to deal with in life and 2) the web has become a shithole with its growth in popularity.

That's my opinion of course. I'm guessing that you think Internet access and Internet publishing are basic rights of human existence, but I would disagree with that.

[tcd]

How do you think problems are resolved if not using the internet as a medium to share thoughts with the world? And even if you think it's a 'shithole' you cannot deny how important it is in everyday life. Entire government services are going and have gone online only, and if you were barred from using the internet you'd find it very difficult to exist within modern society.

I don't know you, but I bet given enough information I can find ways the internet are vital to your way of life.

[okket]

There will be NAT, but not in the way you think: You'll get an IPv6 address only and access the legacy network (IPv4) via NAT64/DNS64.