Now currently I’m not in the workforce, but in the past from my work experience, apprenticeship and temp roles, I’ve always seen ipv4 and not ipv6!

Hell, my ISP seems to exclusively use ipv4 (unless behind nats they’re using ipv6)

Do you think a lot of people stick with the earlier iteration because they have been so familiar with it for a long time?

When you look at a ipv6, it looks menacing with a long string of letters and numbers compared to the more simpler often.

I am aware the IP bucket has gone dry and they gotta bring in a new IP cow with a even bigger bucket, but what do you think? Do you yourself or your firm use ipv4 or 6?

  • WheelchairArtist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Iv6 doesn’t try to simplify routing and remove nat. that’s just how things work. Nat is a workaround for ipv4.

    Ipv6 is around since 1998. that’s not slow to adopt, at that point it is just plain refusal from some because of the costs you mentionend

    • Eyron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Time isn’t the only factor for adoption. Between the adoption of IPv4 and IPv6, the networking stack shifted away from network companies like Novell to the OSes like Windows, which delayed IPv6 support until Vista.

      When IPv4 was adopted, the networking industry was a competitive space. When IPv6 came around, it was becoming stagnant, much like Internet Explorer. It wasn’t until Windows Vista that IPv6 became an option, Windows 7 for professionals to consider it, and another few years later for it to actually deployable in a secure manner (and that’s still questionable).

      Most IT support and developers can even play with IPv6 during the early 2000s because our operating systems and network stacks didn’t support it. Meanwhile, there was a boom of Internet connected devices that only supported IPv4. There are a few other things that affected adoption, but it really was a pretty bad time for IPv6 migration. It’s a little better now, but “better” still isn’t very good.

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Ipv6 does simplify routing. It has less headers and therefore less overheard. IPv6 addressed the necessity of NAT by adding an obscene amount of possible IPs. Removing the necessity of NAT also simplifies routing as it’s less that the router has to do.

      Ipv6 as a concept was drafted in the 90s. It didn’t start actually being seriously used until ~2006/7ish.

      • WheelchairArtist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        IPv6 addressed the necessity of NAT by adding an obscene amount of possible IPs

        that is correct but doesn’t change the fact that nat came afterwards as a workaround und now the ip stack goes back to it’s roots without a nat workaround.

        It didn’t start actually being seriously used until ~2006/7ish.

        true but still nowadays it isn’t even slow anymore just refusal

        • Sundial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          that is correct but doesn’t change the fact that nat came afterwards as a workaround und now the ip stack goes back to it’s roots without a nat workaround.

          And the end result is a simplification for routing.

          true but still nowadays it isn’t even slow anymore just refusal

          That’s just the pace of large scale adoption of new technology. Look at some of the technologies the banking and financial industry uses as an example (ISO 8583 is a great example). ISP’s still support T1 circuits as well.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        There are other benefits of NAT, besides address range. Putting devices behind a NAT is hugely beneficial for privacy and security.

        • tc4m@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          NAT is not a security feature. Your firewall blocks incoming traffic, not NAT. It introduces new complexity that now needs to be solved.

          In corpo environments you have to struggle with NAT traversal for VoIP communication.

          In home networks “smart” devices attempt to solve it with shit like uPnP and suddenly you get bigger holes in your network security than before. You could find countless home network printers on shodan because of this. Even though (or maybe because) they were “behind” NAT.

        • chris@l.roofo.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          IPv6 has temporary IPs for privacy reasons. NAT is NOT a firewall. Setting up a real firewall is more secure and gives you more control without things like UPNP and NAT-PMP.