Researchers push for universal deployment of IPv6 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 03:56:28 pm
content: A bit concerned about this:https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/20/ietf_dnsop_3901bis_ipv4_ipv6/QuoteI question these:*A better future for everyone.*no negative consequencesWhat about compatibility and accessibility and for those on IPV4 only carriers wanting VPN access to their homes.If these ISP's find it no longer works for their users in some way they might move them onto CGNAT.It is the sort of thing I'd expect would fade out and become irrelevant one day not artificially and forcefully by making it incompatible.***So they should accelerate IPV6 not make it difficult for users still on IPV4.Would that make matters worse for the users?What do you think?

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 04:11:36 pm
content: You'd be shocked by how much factory equipment is still in use that uses IP4, and cannot be updated. even though that is still Intranet, once in a while it needs to call home for updates and licensing.Just say NO to IP6 an only world. Or at least wait till I'm retired in 11 years.Steve

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 05:19:37 pm
content: This is suggesting making IPv6 support "mandatory" (although it's essentially still just a recommendation) for public DNS servers.Right now, an IPv6 capable client connecting to an IPv6 capable server may still get downgraded to IPv4 if their DNS server won't handle AAAA records.I'm not sure how common this is in practice. But it definitely sounds undesirable. More than half the clients on the Internet support IPv6 and a large fraction have to live with CG-NAT for IPv4 -- which generally means double NAT.Nothing about this is removing support for IPV4 and the thread topic is completely wrong.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 05:31:54 pm
content: While I have located some 80 million IPV4 allocated to Microsoft, I understand their number of IPV6 address is MUCH higher.While blocking MS traffic has been trivial with IPV4, not sure this will be the case. I can always run two networks if needed (assuming the PC's OS continues to support the old standard.For home, I'll worry about it when the time comes.Doing a quick search, old data but showing 1.11 × 10E31 IPV6 addresses assigned to them.https://ipinfo.io/AS8075

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 05:43:21 pm
content: At least according to the page you linked there are far fewer address blocks. I wouldn't think the number of individual addresses is super relevant in either case.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 06:01:46 pm
content: I currently have mapped 25 discrete blocks which I drop.***My concern would be if it will make filtering more difficult.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 06:36:59 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on August 30, 2025, 06:01:46 pmActually it should become simpler because they should have less IPv6 prefixes. IPv4 prefixes are quite distributed across the address space because of the lack of IPv4. One of the basic ideas of IPv6 is a to use a more hierarchical approach for address space allocation to minimize the number of prefixes in router forwarding/routing tables. At the moment a full BGP routing table has about 990k IPv4 prefixes and 215k IPv6 prefixes.

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 06:49:09 pm
content: It would be nice if companies only had one contiguous block, I am guessing when we start seeing 10 petaByte as a standard on PCs, the software will be just that more bloated. I see it turning into a mess long term. Hopefully you are right.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 07:12:20 pm
content: Before answering your questions I'd like to explain the suggested change for nameservers/resolvers. The current RFC says that the nameserver/resolver must have an IPv4 address and can have an IPv6 address optionally. The change would simply swap the requirements, i.e. must have an IPv6 address and can have an IPv4 address optionally. In reality most nameservers/resolvers have both anyway. The change wouldn't break anything. If someone still has only IPv4 internet access (because of a lazy ISP) his ISP is forced to run a resolver with an IPv4 address for customers and an IPv6 address for retrieving DNS data from nameservers. The same for corporate IPv4-only networks.Quote from: MrMobodies on August 30, 2025, 03:56:28 pmNothing changes for users.Quote from: MrMobodies on August 30, 2025, 03:56:28 pmMany ISPs already deployed CGNAT for IPv4 because they don't have sufficient IPv4 address space and can't get more. Also, a common setup for internet access is DS lite.Quote from: MrMobodies on August 30, 2025, 03:56:28 pmThe change doesn't break anything. It only changes the emphasis from IPv4 to IPv6.Quote from: MrMobodies on August 30, 2025, 03:56:28 pmThe change doesn't break anything.Quote from: MrMobodies on August 30, 2025, 03:56:28 pmNo,

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 07:21:35 pm
content: so how much does it cost ?for those who must move from ipv4 surely they have to cough up money right ? or not ?

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 07:30:25 pm
content: Adoption speed will depend on who hires Momoka Yamamoto next.If it's a cell phone provider (there are about 7B smartphones out there vs ~2B "computers" ), it might go faster , or die on the vine ...

author: westfw
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 09:19:10 pm
content: QuoteA common cause for companies ending up with non-contiguous ip addresses (ipv6 OR ipv4) is "acquisitions."

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 11:37:13 pm
content: I am sorry, l think I made a mistake, if the new DNS won't work with IPV4 wouldn't that affect CGNAT too. If that's the case they'd all be forced to migrate to IPV6.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 11:40:23 pm
content: IPv6 is 27 years old. It's time to pull the sticking plasters that make IPv4 behave vaguely reasonably and move to IPv6 already.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 11:47:30 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on August 30, 2025, 05:19:37 pmMy provider doesn't even support IPV6 yet, even though it's wholesaler, BT does and even my old Draktek routers.BT were suppose to run fibre here in 2022 but they never did. I do have a Cityfibre point out there so might change soon if I find a wholesaler to uses them. I'd expect IPV6 and need some static IP addresses for my VPN's so I can view stuff at home.QuoteOh I thought they were changing/modifying the DNS so it no longer worked with IPV4 and affect resolving names to websites.QuoteOkay, if it is wrong I am willing to change it and what do you suggest I rename it too.So if it forces ISP'S with 'only CGNAT' to migrate wouldn't that be great?

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2025, 01:05:29 am
content: Researchers push for universal deployment of IPv6Researchers exasperated by the delay in universal deployemnt of IPv6 make another pushResearchers in yet another attempt to justify their fnding make new proposal for universal deployment of IPv6Hmmm the more I try the worse it gets ....

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2025, 01:17:38 am
content: Researchers push for universal deployment of IPv6 amid slow IPV4 phaseoutDoes this sound okay?

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2025, 10:11:56 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on August 30, 2025, 05:19:37 pmAAAA RRs are supported by all nameservers/resolvers (software) for a many years. It shouldn't be any issue.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2025, 10:23:13 am
content: Quote from: MrMobodies on August 31, 2025, 01:17:38 amThe IPv4 phaseout is far, far away. We have to get everyone onto IPv6 first. So I'd suggest to drop the 'amid slow IPv4 phaseout'.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 31, 2025, 11:10:00 pm
content: I agree with getting more users onto IPv6, it solves the problems introduced with CGNAT.But I feel as though IPv4 isn't going to go away, at least not in my lifetime. There are too many networks and devices out there that rely on it. It's going to be one of those legacy things that will just keep existing, like DNS.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 05:35:26 pm
content: Reminds me of the push to get everyone on ISDN back in the 90s.IStillDon'tNeed it.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 07:20:15 pm
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on August 30, 2025, 04:11:36 pmThat's what CLAT in a gateway is for. There is IP4 factory equipment right now going through IP6 only mobile networks.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 07:48:02 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 01, 2025, 07:20:15 pmShh, don't tell the IPv4 only crowd that IPv6 is actually designed to work in the real world, and indeed does..

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 07:50:29 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 31, 2025, 11:10:00 pmCGNAT IPs are becoming more valuable for those "scraping" the Web, such as for archiving purposes. (I run some Archiveteam Warriors on a VPN, while not as good as a "proper" CGNAT IP, it does work well to archive sites that try to prevent archival.) A rising use would be to obtain training data for AI, so I expect a push to get rid of CGNAT.Quote from: KE5FX on September 01, 2025, 05:35:26 pmMore like it was rendered obsolete by DSL before it had a chance to get much install base.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 08:19:48 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 30, 2025, 11:40:23 pmAnd yet it hasn't taken the world by storm in all that time. Must be really great stuff.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 08:30:30 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on September 01, 2025, 08:19:48 pmIt doesn't offer anything shiny and new to people, so they're disinclined to deal with it. This leaves everyone else to try and find ways to work around their laziness.