The IPv6 Transition

I have fully implemented IPv6 in my home network.

I have even implemented an IPv6-Only network. It fully works, including accessing IPv4 only websites like github.com via DNS64 and NAT64 at my router.

The only practically useful thing about my IPv6 enabled network is that I can run globally routable services on my lan, without NAT port mapping. Of course, only if the client is also IPv6.

Other than this one use case, IPv6 does nothing for me.

It doesn't work from most hotels, nor from my work lan, nor many other places because most "managed" networks are IPv4 only. It works better at Cafes because they are "unmanaged" and IPv6 is enabled by the most common ISPs, like ATT and Comcast and their provided routers.

Based on this experience, I think IPv6 is less valuable than us HN audience thinks it is. Private networks, NAT, Carrier Grade NAT are good enough, and internet really doesn't care about being completely peer-to-peer.

I think the adoption rate reflects this--it's a linear growth curve over the last 25 years. It should have been exponential.

I think cost of IPv4 reflects this--it is now below the peak, and has leveled off.

As surprising as it seems, IPv4 exhaustion has not been a serious problem. Internet marches on. IPv6 is still a solution looking for a problem, and IPv4 exhaustion wasn't one of them.

NAT is mostly okay, but carrier grade NAT where you can't forward a port causes real problems.

IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.

If it was a real problem, market pricing would reflect the increasing severity of that problem.

The truth is that people who care about port forwarding are such a small minority -- especially now that P2P file sharing has lost its hype -- that they don't make a visible dent in the rate of IPv4 exhaustion.

The market price is only something like 5 or 10 dollars a month, but anyone having to pay that to be accessible is an embarrassing failure of the system. It doesn't matter whether it's a big dent in the number of IPs or not.

There are billions of people out there who can access the internet, and make themselves accessible through the internet the way they want, just fine without a dedicated IP address.

Maybe you have a definition of "access" that is different from the usual one. That's fine, but let's be honest, it's not the usual definition.

Someone being able to connect to their device is the definition I use. What's your definition?

Being able to relay through a third party is a different thing.

Most people are totally fine relaying everything through a third party. A vanishingly small number of email users host it themselves.