IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 14:44 UTC (Fri) by jannic (subscriber, #5821)
In reply to: IPv6 US rollout by RobSeace
Parent article: FSF: GNU hackers discover HACIENDA government surveillance and give us a way to fight back

Be careful what you wish for: Here in Germany, some providers (at least Unitymedia) are delivering native IPv6 to their customers. But they are using Dual Stack Lite: No native IPv4, but some kind of NAT instead.

Of course, in the long run, that's the way to go. Full Dual Stack deployments just don't solve the issue of scarce IPv4 addresses. But for now, from a customer's point of view, even native IPv4 + tunneled IPv6 would be better than native IPv6 + NATed IPv4.

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 14:54 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, here in the US, pretty much everyone gets NAT over a single dynamic IPv4, anyway... Unless you pay big money for a business class connection and static IPs (which we do here at home)... So, for most people here, it wouldn't be any issue to have their IPv4 access over a single NAT'd IP... While the static IPv6 subnet they'd get to go along with it, would be an amazing new benefit!

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 15:13 UTC (Fri) by jannic (subscriber, #5821) [Link] (3 responses)

Ouch, didn't know that. I mean, dynamic IPs are normal here, as well. But at least they are real IPs, not NAT. And getting a static IP isn't very expensive, either, in many cases. E.g. the option costs 5€/month for the DSL line I'm using at the moment.

I guess it's because we are in the lucky situation that in the cities, there are usually two or three providers available to choose from. (At least some kind of DSL connection and a cable based offer.)

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 15:32 UTC (Fri) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] (2 responses)

Actually, I may have misunderstood... When you say NAT, do you mean the ISP is doing its own internal NAT'ing, such that several of its customers are all sharing a single real public IP? That, thankfully, isn't very common around here, that I know of... I just meant most people get a single public IPv4 (which changes regularly), and end up doing their own NAT on it (well, or the ISP does it for them with the supplied modem/router), such that all devices on their internal LAN are using non-public IPs...

I really, really long for the pre-NAT days, when every host had a publically addressable IP!

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 18:43 UTC (Fri) by jannic (subscriber, #5821) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, exactly, large number of customers with single IP address. So you can't even configure port forwarding. Impossible to run even a small private server behind such a thing.

Of course you can run the server on the native IPv6 address you get. But then you can't access it when you are on an IPv4 only network. (Like, say, from your mobile phone...)

They call it 'carrier-grade NAT' to make it sound like it's something good.

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 20:20 UTC (Fri) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link]

This actually sounds like the best configuration to encourage IPv6 adoption.

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 24, 2014 14:34 UTC (Sun) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

That does vary. My ISP permits at least 4 (I think it was actually 6) different IPs on my home connection. So I can run a 4 port switch, use 3 IPs, including one for the router, and any extra devices attach via the router. Works quite well.

Unfortunately the largest ISPs also seem to be the worst ISPs, and they are the ones that are growing. :(

IPv6 US rollout

Posted Aug 22, 2014 20:17 UTC (Fri) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link]

We are on Kabel BW in Germany, and have native IPV6 and DS-Lite. DS-Lite is a bit inconvenient, since we don't have a unique IP address, we cannot do port forwarding, etc. That said, I am happy we are on IPv6 :).