Reply to post:

Windows 10 networking bug derails Microsoft's own IPv6 rollout

Nate Amsden

one article? I've been loosely following IPv6 for what seems like close to a dozen years now and I still have absolutely no interest in it (and yes I do run networks as part of my regular job, have been for nearly 17 years now though network engineer is not my "primary" role). The only real place these days where it MIGHT be needed is client networks, whether it is broadband, mobile etc. Many of those are on carrier grade NAT (including my phone on AT&T's network, just checked again 10.x IP address and no it's not on wifi). I have never had an issue tethering through my phone to AT&Ts CGNAT for any reason (other than shit signal strength).

My org has a need for a small number (3 /27s) of IPv4 space in our data centers, lots of name based virtual hosting via Citrix Netscalers and SNI for SSL allows a large amount of reuse of external IPs. I have a server at a colo in hurricane electric with about a half dozen IPs (they even asked me if I wanted IPv6 and I said no because, well I don't care about it).

I too dislike the hex-like addressing scheme. But at the end of the day IPv6 gives me nothing. Now if it is implemented upstream from me in a transparent way then I don't give a shit.

The people I have seen that seem to complain the most about NAT and IPv6 seem to be heavy proponents of peer to peer stuff, or VoIP or other use cases where NAT has historically had some issues with. Though VoIP through NAT doesn't seem to have been a problem for maybe a decade now for most, and I really have no interest in peer to peer anything.

Oh and those that bitch about overlapping IP spaces, which I admit can be an issue for larger companies that may be connecting to many others, or acquiring companies. Personally though I have not witnessed an IP overlapping issue that either I or a network engineer at a company I worked at has had to deal with since I want to say roughly 2004 (maybe that's a hint that companies I have been at often times have no VPNs etc to outside organizations)

Feel free to keep playing around with your IPv6 tunnels though if it makes you happy. I understand the "big guys" in the service providers need to get serious about IPv6 in many cases, but 98.424324325% of the rest of the world needn't care.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon