upvote

points

by hdgvhicv8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby throw0101a8 hours ago|
[-]
> If that’s not a failure I hate to see what is.

How would several billion smartphones be able to connect to the Internet without IPv6?

There isn't enough RFC 1918 (or 100.64.0.0/10) space for IPv4-only to be practical: Comcast—not even mobile—went to IPv6 because running their TR-069 management over multiple 10/8 became untenable.

IPv6 is making all sorts of things possible without most people realizing it.

reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby hdgvhicv7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Those phones are reaching half the internet via 64 gateways, no difference to reaching via 44 gateways.
reply
upvoteby throw0101a6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Those phones are reaching half the internet via 64 gateways, no difference to reaching via 44 gateways.

And how would they have gotten first-hop connectivity without IPv6?

Comcast added IPv6 many years ago on their wired ISP side because they ran out of IPv4 for TR-069 management, and they had way fewer subscribers (at least at the time) than many mobile telcos.

And that half of the Internet is also some of the most bandwidth intensive stuff: Youtube, Netflix, Instagram. The CG-NAT hardware costs of streaming would be huge.

reply
upvoteby inigyou6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The network isn't just the open internet. There's also the part inside the network. You can view Comcast as a black box that magically gets packets from one side to the other, but Comcast engineers can't.
reply
upvoteby hdgvhicv2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you want to run a single massive scale network sure. One of the costs of scaling that the majority don’t see

No reason you can’t carry IPv4 over any protocol you want. Multi tennant vxlans can carry whatever you want over your base network. Maybe an IPv6 underlay makes sense there, doesn’t really matter

reply