[capableweb]

As long as ISPs are unwilling to actually work on the problem on letting their customers use ipv6, applications/services will continue to be uninterested in exposing ipv6 for usage.

Some countries are doing better than others (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...), but still, ISPs are really dragging their feet...

[api]

The worst foot-draggers are major sites like Github and cloud infrastructure. Google only got IPv6 in GKE this year in most regions.

The other big foot-draggers are corporate networks. Even if the ISP supports V6 many corporate networks do not because two generations of IT professionals learned how to do networking entirely through the lens of NAT as a requirement and don't understand how to do things without it. I've seen many IT peoples' brains just melt at the idea of things just having one address. In reality it simplifies things dramatically but sometimes getting people to grasp a simpler solution is actually harder than getting them to grasp a complex one.

I live in the USA and have had IPv6 at home for over a decade (and have used three different ISPs in that time). Many mobile networks are IPv6-first.

[tenebrisalietum]

NAT is a hack and it going away will be good.

That being said, you can do NAT on IPv6 if you really want to, and maybe it will be needed to help soothe those with those emotional attachment to certain numbers. [fc00::192:168:1:0]/120 or [fc00::10:44:0:0]/96, for example.

[api]

Even with NAT IPv6 is better because the NAT can do 1:1 mapping for every IP inside and does not need to remap ports. There is no port exhaustion and P2P always works.

V6 NAT is unnecessary and dumb but it works better than V4 NAT.

[hinata08]

In my opinion, that should be a legal issue.

Nowadays, you shouldn't be allowed to advertise "internet access" if ipv6 isn't supported.

Ipv6 is the current protocol. And some sites don't have ipv4. (Amazon charging an extra for ipv4 is another sign that ipv4 should be a protocol for particular use cases, not for "the internet")

And it should be the same for software and connected hardware. No ipv6 ? That's not a product that works over the internet.

On a personal side, what I host is only working on ipv6, as my ISP has stable ipv6 but not ipv4, and for the convenience of configuration.

And even cheapo internet plans on mobile and landline support ipv6 by default nowadays. (The government pushed for it)

[msm_]

> On a personal side, what I host is only working on ipv6, as my ISP has stable ipv6 but not ipv4, and for the convenience of configuration.

For me it's the other way around - I disable IPv6 on all my servers and only host anything on IPv4. I know it's frowned upon in networking circles, but IPv4 "just works" for me, and I want to reduce attack scope and maintenance burden (I had some problems with IPv6 messing things up, or my ipv6 firewall misconfigurations).

[Borg3]

Exacly that! I do the same. Accessing of internal resources hosted on LAN? No problem, just make overlay VPN network.

Need to host something via HTTP? mod_proxy to the rescue.

IPv6 is junk protocol, overengineered. I hope IPv6 will be used for all those internet consumers and IPv4 will stay where its place to be, interesting R&D projects :)

[ta1243]

> Ipv6 is the current protocol

It's A protocol

> And some sites don't have ipv4

Yet there are far more sites that don't have ipv6 access.

What's the ipv6 address for hacker news?

[multicast]

The sad part about all this is that Ipv6 was already standardized in the 90s and supported by most network interfaces in the early 2000s.

[whatwhaaaaat]

All major ISPs have had native ipv6 for customers in the US for at least 5 years. Not some funky bastardized implementation but native full ipv6.

Ipv6 is overly complicated and has been riddled with bugs for 30 years now. As long as ipv4 is an option many are going to choose to completely disable it. Some of the security concerns cannot be effectively filtered at all. There are numerous examples of these vulnerabilities from even just the last few years.

It’s hard for teams of engineers to secure properly much less a home user.

I completely disable ipv6 even with a deep understanding of it.

[toast0]

> All major ISPs have had native ipv6 for customers in the US for at least 5 years. Not some funky bastardized implementation but native full ipv6.

CenturyLink (or Lumen or whatever they want to call themselves today) only has 6rd, at least in my neck of the PNW. And it's best if you don't use it, as their CPE tends to do bad things if you do; my initial CPE would reboot if a fragmented 6rd packet came in over the WAN interface. The current CPE doesn't reboot, but v6 packets sometimes take about 1 second to transit the CPE, so I gave in and run the CPE as a bridge and do PPPoE on my own equipment.

[Volundr]

Here in Boise I have two choices for internet, Sparklight or CenturyLink. CenturyLink will only deliver 80Mbps to my house and Sparklight does not support IPv6.