• chris@l.roofo.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    The perpetual chicken egg problem of IPv6: many users don’t have IPv6 because it’s not worth it because everything is reachable via IPv4 anyways because IPv6 only service don’t make sense because they will only reach a subset of users because many users don’t have IPv6…

    • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes but IPv4 is becoming expensive and it’s annoying having to use a middleman to clone github repos on a v6-only VPS

      IPv6 is not hard, there is no excuse not to have it

      • krellor@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I mean, yes and no. For an individual or individual systems? No, it’s not hard. But I used to oversee a WAN with multiple large sites each with their own complex border, core, and campus plant infrastructure. When you have an environment like that with complex peerings, and onsite and cloud networks it’s a bit trickier to introduce dual stack addressing down to the edge. You need a bunch of additional tooling to extend your BGP monitoring, ability to track asynchronous route issues, add route advertisements etc. when you have a large production network to avoid breaking, it’s more of a nail biter, because it’s not like we have a dev network that is a 1-1 of our physical environment. We have lab equipment, and a virtual implementation of our prod network, but you can only simulate so much.

        That being said, we did implement it before most of the rest of the world, in part because I wanted to sell most of our very large IPv4 networks while prices are rising. But it was a real engineering challenge and I was lucky to have the team and resources and time to get it done when it wasn’t driving an urgent, short timeline need.

      • 30p87@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Or one could use alternative hosters, or maybe even selfhost git services.

          • 30p87@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            How about “Let me selfhost my own repos, so other people working with my stuff can use IPv6, as well as be sure no large corporation known for being cancer stands behind it and monitors every thing I do.”?

            • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              I do 🥰

              That doesn’t solve the problem of me needing other peoples githubs repos on a VPS with no v4

    • Album@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Honestly this isn’t even true anymore. Most major ISPs have implemented dual stack now. The customer doesn’t know or care because it’s done at the CPE for them.

      I use a browser extension which tells me if the site I’m at is 6 or 4 or mixed. In 2024 most major sites support V6. A lot of this is due to CDN supporting it natively.

      The fact that GitHub doesn’t is quickly becoming the exception.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      If IPv6 is done right you don’t even know you have it. If you use a cell phone or a home Internet, there is a high chance you are already using IPv6.

    • chevy9294@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I don’t have IPv6, but I can still reach IPv6 only sites if I use MullvadVPN (and probably also with other VPN providers).