dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to BliZZardX

Re: World IPv6 Day

It's a catch-22, and it's why IPv6 will probably thankfully never catch on. Providers don't want to bother with IPv6 because end-users can't use it, and there's no demand from end-users because there's no content.

If they had wanted to, they could have FORCED a rapid transition, but they didn't, and it may be too late.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


kovy

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8

said by Guspaz:

It's a catch-22, and it's why IPv6 will probably thankfully never catch on. Providers don't want to bother with IPv6 because end-users can't use it, and there's no demand from end-users because there's no content.

If they had wanted to, they could have FORCED a rapid transition, but they didn't, and it may be too late.

Too late for what?

You really think were going to have a crysis of IPV4 ? The day that people can't browse because their ISP has no more IP ?

file

join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB
reply to Guspaz

This is like bloody area codes in cities... oh no, we'll never need another area code! We'll always have enough phone numbers. People can just call one direct number and get transferred to an extension if we run out. Oh, wait, nope. Now cities have multiple area codes and your brain had to be reprogrammed to think about 10 digit dialing, as did devices.

Did the content of the call drive that? No. Running out of phone numbers.

(Disclaimer: Yes I realize the migration was not as complex as IPv6, but moving to 10 digit dialing still was a bump in the road for some and didn't matter for others.)



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to kovy

said by kovy:

Too late for what?

You really think were going to have a crysis of IPV4 ? The day that people can't browse because their ISP has no more IP ?

No, I know we won't have a crisis, because ISPs like Bell can use private-network IP addresses for end-users and NAT them, and barely anybody would notice. Users who needed a dedicated IP could pay extra for one, and the 99% of the rest of people who just do normal stuff like surfing, email, netflix, etc. would be just fine behind NAT. For most people, there would be no perceptible difference.

Much like InvalidError says most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to IPv6, most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to NAT.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

file

join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB

1 recommendation

I disagree that barely anybody would notice. The way people use the internet is changing, people aren't simply settling for surfing/email/Netflix. Once they see what they can do it changes, and a lot of this is going towards applications that require the ability to get back to your house over the internet.

I'll throw an example out there - the Slingbox. It allows you to watch your TV remotely, but this requires port forwarding. The average consumer, if behind a carrier grade NAT, will hook this up, have it not work, find out they need to pay more for a dedicated IP, get upset with the ISP, and maybe even just return the Slingbox. You just stifled usage of the internet. Way to go.

Carrier grade NAT also places a huge burden on the ISP since you need to have pretty beefy equipment to not introduce much latency for the copious amounts of traffic flowing through it.


kovy

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

said by kovy:

Too late for what?

You really think were going to have a crysis of IPV4 ? The day that people can't browse because their ISP has no more IP ?

No, I know we won't have a crisis, because ISPs like Bell can use private-network IP addresses for end-users and NAT them, and barely anybody would notice. Users who needed a dedicated IP could pay extra for one, and the 99% of the rest of people who just do normal stuff like surfing, email, netflix, etc. would be just fine behind NAT. For most people, there would be no perceptible difference.

Much like InvalidError says most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to IPv6, most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to NAT.

That's exactly it!


openvz_ca

join:2008-12-13
canada
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

No, I know we won't have a crisis, because ISPs like Bell can use private-network IP addresses for end-users and NAT them, and barely anybody would notice.

I don't think you give people enough credit here... Saying no one would notice if they are natted behind a massive private network is a stretch.

Not to mention, the very definition of "internet" would need to be re-written.

A solution like that would only work if people only use their connection to browse the net. There are many applications out there that require a public ip for inbound connections.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by openvz_ca:

I don't think you give people enough credit here... Saying no one would notice if they are natted behind a massive private network is a stretch.

It is a huge stretch. There are more than enough common apps that are fragile in NATed environments from games, VoIP, file transfers in IM networks, BitTorrent, etc. and are dependent on having inbound ports open on one or both ends. In an environment with CGN / LSN and no control over inbound ports that break more than enough applications.

But when CGN / LSN finally comes into play v6 will be there so it won't be an issue. Move from the old shitty road to the new road.

NAT is nothing but a plague and a crutch. It needs to die a quick death. It would also solve a lot of problems too.


RMerlin

join:2009-10-09
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

reply to Guspaz

For starter, all the hordes of Torrent downloaders would notice if they were NATted by their ISP. Some online gamers hosting a gaming server would also be pretty annoyed. And who knows what would happen with SIP if your ISP's NAT were broken or sub-par...

IPv6 isn't nearly as bad as it might initially seem. After spending some time getting familiar with it using a Hurricane Electrics tunnel, I am familiar enough with it to actually appreciate what it brings, such as static IP for anyone without having to pay between $5 and $20 to your ISP. Yes, IPs are longer. But DNS and host files have been around forever - just make good use of them.

And, unlike IPv4, security isn't just an afterthought patched on top of it. There is also the matter of higher efficiency. IPv6 brings in better routing management, less wasted space in packet headers, etc...


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by RMerlin:

For starter, all the hordes of Torrent downloaders would notice if they were NATted by their ISP. Some online gamers hosting a gaming server would also be pretty annoyed. And who knows what would happen with SIP if your ISP's NAT were broken or sub-par...

AT&T will be rolling out CGN soon. Others will be as well. It's the use of CGN and multi-layer NAT and such that'll encourage the use of v6 as it'll become the road that actually works and isn't broken by all the NAT. But ultimately you'd want v6 for Torrents, VoIP, gaming and various other apps anyway.