
IPv6 excuse bingo - fanf2
https://ipv6bingo.com/
======
simias
The number one excuse in my opinion is: you can't only support IPv6 if you
make a service that can interact with anything IPv4, so the real question is
not "should I use IPv6 or IPv4?" but rather "Should I use IPv6 _and_ IPv4 or
just IPv4?"

Clearly all other things being equal supporting only one stack is easier than
two. It's a shame though, at work I've decided to go full IPv6 for one of our
software solutions because I'm only talking "to myself" and it's amazing to
have so much flexibility in your addressing. Need a unique IP in a distributed
system? Just stick your MAC in there and you're good to go. Need a private
network prefix that won't clash with anybody, anywhere? Use RFC 4193 and
you're good to go.

~~~
otabdeveloper2
> and it's amazing to have so much flexibility in your addressing.

More flexibility than having the entire 10.* block to yourself? What are you,
Google?

~~~
teraflop
Yes, flexibility. You don't need to have 2^24 hosts for a 24-bit address space
to start becoming cramped. You have to divide up that space into subnets that
roughly match your physical network structure, which depends on accurately
anticipating future growth; otherwise you'll have to suffer the pain of
renumbering later on.

The real benefit of a /48 or /32 IPv6 subnet isn't that you never run out of
individual addresses. It's that you're practically guaranteed never to run out
of identifiers _at any level of the hierarchy_.

------
antirez
17) Nobody wants to do work without some actual immediate local reward (in
time _and_ space, since IPv6 is surely beneficial from the POV of the world at
large), potentially creating N problems.

IPv6 should be studied as an emblematic case of mistake in the approach of the
introduction of a new technology.

~~~
Waterluvian
Yeah I did a bunch of AWS stuff for a new project at the startup I'm at. I
tried for five minutes to get ipv6 working across all my VPC stuff. Didn't
work. Wouldn't provide immediate benefit. Moved on real quickly.

~~~
aodin
If you use terraform, I put together this example project for AWS + IPv6:
[https://github.com/aodin/aws-ipv6](https://github.com/aodin/aws-ipv6)

------
danpalmer
The strongest rejection of these that I've seen so far is that BT in the UK
rolled out IPv6 to all of their residential customers over a year ago now, and
have had it in some form for several years.

BT are huge, very slow moving, not very efficient, not considered "cool", not
considered to be cutting edge in any way, and most of their residential
customers have no idea what IPv6 is. Technically inclined customers who care
about this sort of stuff, or early adopters are very unlikely to use BT.

If they can do it, anyone can.

~~~
antirez
This is a good case study, however it is worth to note that internet providers
are among the ones getting something back from switching to IPv6.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
What do they get back?

~~~
supertrope
Not having to buy IPv4 addresses. CG-NAT infrastructure expenses scale up with
customer base. If most of their traffic is end to end IPv6 that's a savings.
End point machines like cable modems, TV decoders, VoIP adapters/IP phones,
all need their own IP address; service providers with more than 16.7 million
managed devices attached need IPv6.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
But do the ongoing CGNAT expenses outweigh the potential expenses of
transitioning?

I'm with one of, if not the, largest UK ISP and am pretty sure they're not
IPv6 ready because their routers have no mention of it (Huawei router firmware
updates presumably needed). BT have upgraded the physical infrastructure so
I'd expect we'd be there already if there were easy savings.

------
krallja
Bingo is a 5x5 grid, not 4x4. At best, this is "bino". And you're missing the
free space square in the middle.

~~~
cmsd2
Bingo In Name Only?

------
sly010
When it comes to tech migrations I see 3 types of stories.

1\. Create "new technology" that is a backward compatible or even drop in
replacement for old technologies. Good examples of this is Web technologies,
TLS, Linux APIs, bitcoin soft forks etc. This however makes "new technology"
vastly more complicated both in concept and in implementation. e.g. writing a
conforming web browser from scratch is impossible today.

2\. Create "new technologies" that are parallel redesigns and are made "how
they should be". The intent is to simplify the technology and fix problems
discovered in previous versions. The plan is to run things parallel until
people _voluntarily_ switch to "new tech" because it's better. Examples of
this is python 2 vs python 3, IPv6, etc.

3\. A third approach I guess is making backward compatibility a tool, like
it's done with all ANYTHING->ES5 compilers.

(Sidenote: python2to3 tool should have been python3to2 instead)

------
vortico
Well, these sound like great excuses to not switch to ipv6.

~~~
rhacker
LOL, that's actually quite true.

------
cjensen
"Customer sites routinely have IPv6 disabled on all their systems by their
cargo cultist sysadmins"

~~~
Spivak
Ayy, we're one of those sites. Disabling IPv6, if you don't use it, is
basically the second bullet point on any system hardening benchmark.

------
nneonneo
My favorite part of this site has got to be the crying double-colon logo!

I do wish IPv6 would come sooner, but it's going to take a real extrinsic
reason (e.g. catastrophe) for true mass adoption to happen quickly. Otherwise
it's just going to happen slow-as-ever.

------
yuchi
I’m always in for some laughs, don’t get me wrong. But if there’s something I
hate is a list of bad examples (such as “falsehoods programmers think") where
there’s no reference to an explanation of why each of those is a bad example.

If you can’t formulate _why_ it‘s a bad example then there’s no way it will be
spreaded knowledge.

~~~
JdeBP
You didn't follow the hyperlinks, then. (-:

------
khamoud
Nit: the site should be serving all of its assets over https.

~~~
nikanj
Otherwise someone could eavesdrop this publicly available material, or MITM
the content for the benefit of...why?

This new https craze is like demanding seals of authenticity from posters on
lamp posts.

~~~
JackCh
> _" MITM the content for the benefit of...why?"_

To insert advertisements or "helpful" messages
([https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108))

~~~
teddyh
See also RFC 7258, “ _Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack_ ”

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258)

------
FrozenVoid
Ironically, their excuses make sense in context. Not all people will find
technical superiority as a good argument(Linux vs Windows), as any doubt or
excuse will be judged as another benefit of maintaining the status quo. The
cost of switching is a real thing, they don't feel the Ipv4 exhaustion
pressure personally and the old thing works. And there are some unfortunate
details in IPv6 deployment decisions that make switching harder or costly
enough, just enough to use alternatives fixes(like NAT) or maintain some
cludge to route IPv6 without actually supporting it(read
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4) ).

------
SadWebDeveloper
Missed one: Waiting for IPv6.1 to revert everything back to like IPv4 but with
four extra digits.

------
4bpp
It's slightly curious to see one of these for a (to my best understanding) not
particularly politicised as of yet topic, but maybe it is worth reasserting
that "I anticipated your argument and put it on a bingo board!" is not a
useful or productive counterargument. (cf. Scott Alexander's old post on this
tactic in the culture war context:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20180311015052/https://squid314....](https://web.archive.org/web/20180311015052/https://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html))

~~~
JdeBP
This discussion has been going around and around for roughly 20 years.
_Anticipating_ arguments is almost certainly _not_ involved here. (-:

------
Angostura
"I can't remember IP addresses that long"

------
pas
So we don't have PI address space, but that'd probably cost some dough.

Anyway, our hosting provider wants money to give us a v6 prefix. And that's
probably because the RIRs and LIRs also charge a fee.

And I don't understand why wouldn't they allocate prefixes for free to those
who already have v4 leases.

Or maybe someone just wants to fleece us.

------
49bc
It's missing a square: "Switching to IPv6 doesn't provide us any material
benefit."

~~~
Sylos
The tiles change as you reload. It's in there like this:

There's no ROI (return on investment) on deploying IPv6.

------
shmerl
_> There's no ROI on deploying IPv6_

That's Verizon.

------
wvenable
I had to disable IPv6 on my LAN because many things didn't work or didn't work
reliably.

~~~
ryandrake
Mind sharing an example? Not that I don’t believe you, but I’m fully IPV6 on
my (admittedly small) home LAN and have IPV6 upstream to my ISP (thank you,
Comcast), and everything I need works well. I’d love to know what you had
trouble with, simply to verify for myself that I’m not unknowingly broken!

~~~
wvenable
I'm sure it's highly dependent on the equipment. My ISP's router allows you to
control the DNS settings for IPv4 but not for IPv6. So I could not reliably
re-point the DNS servers. The router also gives the ability add local DNS
names for lan addresses and that literally just doesn't work when IPv6 is
enabled.

Connecting to a Chromecast from iOS devices was also more hit and miss when
IPv6 was enabled. Actually iOS devices seem to have a lot of LAN connectivity
issues in general even though they had full access to the Internet. Again,
this could be a router issue.

~~~
mitchty
I also have had no issues with a fully dual stack ipv4 and ipv6 network on
Comcast. I however do run my own firewall/router, its just a silly openbsd box
with some pf firewall rules.

I wouldn't trust any vendor router anyway. Never had issues with ipv6
internally with ios devices either. They're some of the most active ipv6
devices as well with the happy eyeballs or whatever change they seem to prefer
ipv6.

~~~
wvenable
I previously didn't have any choice but to use the ISP's router but I recently
got fiber and now I'm no longer limited to the router they provide. I might
splurge and buy a good one. I used to run my own PC-based router a long time
ago but when it became impossible to use with my ISP I dropped it.

------
hartator
I feel the issue is more about benefits than how easy it is to set up. The why
matters more.

------
natch
“We are doing just fine with NAT.”

~~~
floatboth
"NAT gives you privacy!" :D

I mean, I like how sharing my IPv4 address with neighbors under cgNAT makes
e.g. torrent monitoring sites (was on HN some time ago?) mix several people's
downloads together into one list lol… but with actual data analysis it
shouldn't be hard to separate my activity and the neighbors'

~~~
Dagger2
In the end this indeed doesn't really help you much, because the ISP just ends
up maintaining a giant database with records of every single connection that
they can use to figure out who did what.

And who pays the bill for that? You do.

~~~
floatboth
Well, e.g. a random forum admin from overseas doesn't really have access to my
ISP's database.

------
SadWebDeveloper
Seriously speaking... not a single sysadmin is going to spend time deploying
IPv6 for future-proofing while IPv4 is fully maintained and supported.

Best push we can make IPv6 happen is to force all Operating Systems to ditch
IPv4 support in favor of IPv6 on their next major version and just play the
wait game but nobody is going to do that.

