undefined

points

[-]

NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point.

Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around.

As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest. When people talk about averting address exhaustion, they're not talking about internal addressing of networks, different problem altogether.

by baby_souffle5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhausted we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point.

This is factually difficult to support. (Sent from my iPad which doesn’t have an ipv4 address… to hacker news which has an ipv6 address)

by mahboi3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.

by baby_souffle1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> but isn't what most people do.

Most people run dual stack and as $favoriteHost gets AAAA, their traffic moves over.

My broader point was that your use of overstatement and a false dichotomy isn't _helping_ us get to a world where IPv6 is dominant.

by mahboi3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet

Only because of NAT. Those cellular CGNATs are v6 on the inside but v4 on the outside (well also v6 but customers need the v4 more).