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.

Can it be that IPv4 price now leveled off because big players are getting ready to switch to IPv6 any time and not buying up anything that is available?

If GooG/FB/Amazon force IPv6 how long will it take for ISPs to switch? I think in one week where some people cannot reach GooG/FB and any ISP that was dragging his feet has implemented IPv6 by the end of the week.

I expect IPv6 adoption will blow up any time now as past performance is not indication of future changes ;) because there is much more required on the server side than it was ever before. ISP and home use could live with NAT but servers not really even if you can handle bunch of services on a single IP address, there is just limited traffic you can squeeze onto a single server.

TFA is suggesting almost the exact opposite. "Servers" are moving more and more to an architecture where the service is a distributed collection of machines all over the world sharing only a DNS name; multiple servers share the same physical box, relying on TLS SNI to decide which particular content is intended. While NAT itself would be a problem, the reality is that a service no longer needs some unique IP: the same public IP can be shared by Netflix and Max, and the only relevant thing is that the incoming connection specifies which of the two is intended through the DNS name.