←back to thread

Using the Internet without IPv4 connectivity

(jamesmcm.github.io)
296 points jmillikin | 3 comments | 29 Jun 25 08:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.601s | source
Show context
sylware ◴[29 Jun 25 09:32 UTC] No.44411605[source]▶
Blockers for switching off IPv4:

- I am using alternative search engines, and it seems most do not provide IPv6 connectivity (when they are not wrecked by big tech gigantic network resources, you know "AI"... how to conveniently DDOS alternatives...)

- github.com: zero ipv6 last time I did check. This is microsoft, do not expect anything good, actually expect the worst, for instance they broke recently noscript/basic (x)html for the issues. Can we still create a account with a noscript/basic (x)html browser and self-hosted emails with IP(v6) literals (mailbox@[ipv6:...])?

- steam? games? Did not check lately. I think many CDNs/game servers or good chunks of them are still IPv4 only.

- many email servers: additionnally many blocks self-hosted email servers (often due to the usage of clumsy and inappropriate block lists from spamhaus, a shaddy company from Switzerland and Andore), with a DNS (SPF) or ip literals (even if it is much stronger than SPF).

- A lot of network applications do not leverage the power of IPv6: for instance for the client-server applications (web for instance), a client-server session should be using a randomly generated IPv6 address, if the ISP provides a not to big prefix. Mobile internet IPv6 ISPs seem to provide random IPv6/128 addresses (in their prefixes), but should provide a stable prefix (probably 96bits) in order to let the terminal applications choose "fixed" ipv6 addresses for direct audio/video calls (no central and online name resolution required). A new user-level OS service is required for user application IPv6 address coordination (beware of brain damaged complexity which some vendors and developer will force upon users and app devs for lock-in).

replies(5): >>44411647 #>>44412015 #>>44412108 #>>44412464 #>>44412635 #
1. jeroenhd ◴[29 Jun 25 12:40 UTC] No.44412635[source]▶
I don't think moving off IPv4 is on anyone's radar yet, unless you're buying VPS services that often come with a discount when you run on IPv6 only. In practice, you'll probably always have IPv4 connectivity of some sort, even though it's probably going to become more and more likely that that connectivity is attained through CGNAT.

Github is especially infuriating. For a few weeks, they ran a test, everything seemed to work great, and then they reverted to IPv4-only again.

Email servers live a decade or two in the past anyway. Disabling SSL 3.0 or TLS 1.0 support on email servers is still something you can't do without risking email deliverability problems. Microsoft Outlook's support and spam filters don't even seem to be aware of IPv6 capable mail servers (despite their headers showing they've been using IPv6 internally for ages).

I do wish IPv6 would be leveraged more, but the fear that maybe things work slightly less well for a minority of customers seems to be freezing every attempt at actually making use of the tech.

The reason you may be seeing weird IP behaviour from mobile carriers probably has to do with the way IP on mobile networks works, though. If you're on a call driving down a highway or sitting in a high-speed train, your phone will be doing handovers over and over again, and your IP address needs some form of stability. You may even cross a border and switch to a foreign network and the entire stack is supposed to maintain a seamless connection. There are special routing systems set up within cellular networks (some of which make excellent use of IPv6 features) that will make it very difficult to provide "normal" static GUAs to cell phones. Things are made as normal as possible, but it's not as easy to accomplish that kind of stability as you would with a fixed-line home internet connection.

replies(1): >>44413207 #
2. somidscr21 ◴[29 Jun 25 13:57 UTC] No.44413207[source]▶
The US government is under a mandate to move to v6 only, so it's very much on some radars. Hopefully some ISPs follow suit.
replies(1): >>44417011 #
3. nadermx ◴[29 Jun 25 22:14 UTC] No.44417011[source]▶
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-0...

Is it on schedule? 80% by 2025.