any interesting/useful resources available to IPv6 only?


I am trying to make a case (to old fuddy-duddies, which is why I even
need to actually make a case) for IPv6 for my own selfish reasons. :slight_smile:

I wonder if anyone has any references to interesting/useful/otherwise
resources on are only available to IPv6 users that they can forward to


IPv6 is not a darknet, you won't find something hidden and unique there.

If you want to make a case for having IPv6, google a bit there are lots of reasons.

One good one is presented by Rabobank:

TLDR: customers behind CGN and thus harder to separate them as you suddenly get multiple from the same IPv4 instead of more information with one per IPv6....


This type of marketing approach was pursued doggedly for many of the early years of IPv6 rollout. It was as misguided then as it was ineffective.

If you have plenty of IPv4 space, you have no case for IPv6. (And I say that as one of the most enthusiastic proponents of it.) OTOH, if you are/might/will be approach(ing) any kind of IPv4 capacity limitation, then you want to start deploying IPv6 ASAP.

The other case that makes business sense is a content provider with a lot of traffic. You can get different, and often better, peering relationships over IPv6; and there are a lot of eyeball networks, especially mobile providers, who are using it natively nowadays.

hope this helps,


The most valuable/useful network resource available today using IPv6 is a mobile network customer. (Not necessarily IPV6 only, but IPv4 requires extra effort.)

Hello all
I have prepared something in the past you might find useful (hopefully).
Please check the attached.


Most of my personals websites are IPv6-only, but they are neither interesting nor useful.

Although, perhaps is of any use, because I made every attempt to make it entirely IPv6-only, including it's authoritative name servers. That sometimes leads to interesting results.

And furthermore I'd like to recommend a site that is not mine, but that I appreciate a lot:

I’ve found a VPS provider ( that offers cheaper instances with IPv6 only. I suspect that there might be others, as ultimately those sort of services can’t really escape the issue by using NAT.

kind regards

First, it's considered rude to send attachments of any size to a mailing list, never mind one that's almost 2 megs in size. Much better to put it on a web site somewhere and send a URL.

Second, I normally wouldn't respond to something like this, except that there are so many errors and bad ideas in your document that I felt compelled to respond lest someone find it in the archives and rely on it. I will assume that your intentions were good here, however your results are dangerous, in the sense that someone reading your document would be worse off than if they had not read it.

Taking one tidbit from one of your early paragraphs, "The IPv6 protocol creates a 128-bit address, four times the size of the 32-bit IPv4 standard." There is, sort of, a sense in which you could say that the addresses themselves are four times the size, but it creates a dangerous impression that the total address space of IPv6 is only four times the size of IPv4; and it's the address space that is the thing actually worth talking about.

Many of your other errors also involve math, which suggests a lack of understanding of basic networking concepts, binary math, etc. For example, "With 264 available addresses per segment, it is highly unlikely to see prefix lengths shorter than /64 for segments that host end systems." A /64 segment in IPv6 has 2^64 address, or the entire IPv4 address range, squared. Maybe you meant to say 2^64 and forgot the exponent indicator? Given that you correctly identify exponents in other sections, it's hard to tell.

The document is also out of date in regards to the latest protocol changes, deprecations, etc.; and further out of date in regards to how operators are actually implementing IPv6.

Again, sorry to pile on ...

If anyone is looking for a pretty good introduction to the basics of IPv6 the Wikipedia article is a good start.

hope this helps,


That's an interesting one. Neat to see.

But it would probably be a stretch to try to use that as example of why
my ISP needs to provide IPv6 connectivity since even if I bought one of
those IPv6-only VPS, I could probably still administer it over IPv4.

That and that such a VPS is only reachable from IPv6 addresses, if I
were to have one, makes more of a case why other ISPs should support
IPv6 rather than my own ISP.

But it might be a useful case to point to in the more general sense of
"there is a portion of the Internet that is only reachable from IPv6


Another provider offering discounted IPv6 only VPSes is -- the two cheapest options "XS-V6" and "Small - IPv6" are IPv6 only.

also is IPv6 only.


VULTR VM IPv6 only is available aswell at $2.5 per month.

In article <> you write:

Another provider offering discounted IPv6 only VPSes is

VPS and Cloud for Infra-as-Code - -- the two cheapest options "XS-V6" and
"Small - IPv6" are IPv6 only.

That's not very persuasive since even their v6 only prices are pretty
high. Gandi charges $13.10 for 1GB RAM and 20GB disk. Amazon will
give you 1GB RAM and 40GB of disk and a v4 address for $5/mo. I like
Gandi just fine but those v6 VPS only make sense as a back end to
something else. It will be a very long time until there are public
services that anyone cares about on v6 only.

There are perfectly good reasons to use v6: no NAT in front of your
devices, every service gets its own IP, better connections to devices
on mobile networks and home networks that are behind v4 NATs.


There are perfectly good reasons to use v6: no NAT in front of your


every service gets its own IP,


better connections to devices
on mobile networks and home networks that are behind v4 NATs.


All very good reasons, and in fact every one of them are my primary

But the came I am making is to PHBs, not engineers and I am trying to
find a path of least resistance.


PHB? Then make it a cost argument.

β€œIf you plan an implement V6 today, will will cost N. If you delay until you discover V6 only services, it will cost 3-5xN to implement quickly, with additional risk of additional costs because quicker implementations are likely to miss something along the way.”

Amazingly enough, I first heard that exact reasoning all the way back in 1998. And
we had some IPv6 in production by 1999.

In article <> you write:

But the came I am making is to PHBs, not engineers and I am trying to
find a path of least resistance.

Oh, then tell them that IPv4 addresses now cost (wave hands) ten bucks
each while IPv6 addresses are free because there's so many more of
them. The sooner you're able to run your own infrastructure on v6,
the longer your now-valuable v4 addresses will last.

I wouldn't say it's strictly true, but it's less false than claiming
there will be services other places you can only get to on v6.

I have things at work that is only reachable using IPv6. This is not of general interest to anyone, but it does make it annoying for me when I happen to be on IPv4 only as I have to perform extra steps to reach these IPv6 only resources.

I also have devices in my home I can only login directly to via IPv6, as I have opted not to have any IPv4 port forwards in my router.

So the best case you can probably make is that there are things out there that are IPv6 only, not just the kinds of services that most people would care about (since if they would, someone would want it as widely available as possible, this making it dual stack).

But the came I am making is to PHBs, not engineers and I am trying to
find a path of least resistance.

IPv6 is, on average, 20ms faster than IPv4. I don't know why, I just know that the evidence is diverse and compelling that it's true. Fast – Retevia

A faster web site means people find it earlier in Google search, stay on it longer, and buy more stuff from it. IPv6 for Sales and SEO – Retevia

If you're an ISP, it would be nice to give your customers that extra speed.

IPv6 in your data center also means your security team has an easier time tracking down miscreants than if they were behind CGN. Any security tool without IPv6 is blind to 54% of US traffic, 24% of CA traffic, 27% of global traffic.

Renumbering into IPv6 might mean you can make addresses available for sale, and prices are approaching the point where that makes sense. Address Pricing: 2019 and Beyond – Retevia

For ISPs, you should absolutely figure out your IPv4 run rate, i.e., when you'll run out of IPv4 addresses. Then the PHBs have to decide what to do about that: deploy IPv6 and hope it's a viable alternative (with translation?), buy IPv4 addresses (at today's prices or tomorrow's, and how many addresses?), or deploy NAT44 and hope customers are okay with it.

For ISPs, consider how many of your customers are medium to large companies. These customers may need IPv6, either to sell their own addresses, or to connect with branches or partners who are out of IPv4. There are ISPs in the world who only support native IPv4 because some of their customers can't get approval for IPv4 from US corporate HQ. Of course, they pay more for that. For that matter, consider how much you charge for additional IPv4 addresses, and the rate at which customers could decline that service.

(But wait, you say, PHBs don't want to lose the IPv4 revenue! Depends on whether the competition is likely to offer the cheaper alternative)

Finally, the Rabobank argument: Maybe there aren't important sites, tools, or architectures that are only available over IPv6 right now. When will there be? Five years? Ten? (Seven? IPv6 Growth – Retevia) How long will it take you to be completely IPv4-independent, and will it be done in time?

So there's an 8-slide deck for you. Good luck with that pitch! I'm interested in what feedback/pushback you get.


The Dancing Kame, surely.

That Kame has been liberated and made available over IPv4 so long ago that the shop that was selling the stuffed ones has been defunct for about two decades...