[londons_explore]

As soon as we get to about 70%, I reckon some games and apps will stop supporting ipv4 on the basis that nat traversal is a pain and dual stack networking is a pain.

If you spend 2 days vibe coding some chat app and then you have to spend 2 further days debugging why file sharing doesn't work for ipv4 users behind nat, you might just say it isn't supported for people whose ISP's use 'older technology'.

After that, I reckon the transition will speed up a lot.

[gruturo]

> some games and apps will stop supporting ipv4 on the basis that nat traversal is a pain and dual stack networking is a pain

None of these are actually the game/app developers' problem. The OS takes care of them for you (you may need code for e2e connectivity when both are behind a NAT, but STUN/TURN/whatever we do nowadays is trivial to implement).

[eqvinox]

> None of these are actually the game/app developers' problem.

Except people complain to the game/app developer when it doesn't work.

[RedShift1]

What makes you think filesharing is going to work any better on IPv6?

[kccqzy]

NAT traversal not needed. Just need to deal with firewalls. So that's one fewer thing to think about when doing peer-to-peer file sharing over the internet.

[ectospheno]

“Just need to deal with firewalls.”

The only sane thing to do in a SLAAC setup is block everything. So no, it isn’t a solved problem just because you used ipv6.

[kccqzy]

No. Here's a simple strategy: the two peers send each other a few packets simultaneously, then the firewall will open because by default almost all firewalls allow response traffic. IPv6 simplifies things because you know exactly what address to send to.

[ectospheno]

That is my point. You hole punch in that scenario even without NAT. It is no easier.

[the8472]

It's easier since you don't don't have to deal with symmetric nat, external IP address discovery and port mapping.