I think the next requirement for iOS apps: "We ran your app on an IPv6 only
network and it did not work. Your submission to the Apple store is
therefore denied."
According to http://business.comcast.com/internet/business-internet/static-=
ip
Comcast charges $19.95 per month for one static IPv4 address.
High dollar amounts for a single static IPv4 address are nothing new,
and are IMHO a side effect of monopoly/duopoly last mile providers being
able to shake down end users because the end user's financially viable
options are typically just "pay up or don't get a static."
The question really at hand: what happens when you need to host a new
pile of servers, need/can-justify a /24, and your hosting provider
quotes you $2560/month just for the IP space (at $10/IP)?
That'd be an incentive to look seriously at IPv6.... I *think*.
Switching hosting providers will probably become a popular game for
the early depletion era, as providers attempt to rob each other of
customers. That's probably a losing game in the long run.
... JG
No doubt as an iOS/Apple developer for a hobby, they have been pretty forth coming on dual stack.
It’s not totally a requirement yet, but pretty much a BCOP:
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternetWeb/Conceptual/NetworkingOverview/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition/UnderstandingandPreparingfortheIPv6Transition.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40010220-CH213-SW11
Sorry if it’s behind a sign-in wall.
Sincerely,
Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300
F: 610-429-3222
That will be pretty interesting for anybody who's using aws as their server infrastructure since aws is
still v6 useless last i heard.
Mike
I wonder if a sudden exodus of customers whose iOS app got axed
because it can't contact an aws-hosted server from an IPv6-only
network will be enough to get their attention....
What people often miss is the front end doesn't need to be the same as the backend. The front should be v6, and using a service to do this for you isn't too hard. This is what many CDNs do.
Jared Mauch
According to http://business.comcast.com/internet/business-internet/static-=
ip
Comcast charges $19.95 per month for one static IPv4 address.High dollar amounts for a single static IPv4 address are nothing new,
and are IMHO a side effect of monopoly/duopoly last mile providers being
able to shake down end users because the end user's financially viable
options are typically just "pay up or don't get a static.”
Yep… That’s why my Comcast service has dynamic IP addresses and I only
use them for effective Layer 2 services (GRE tunnels to the real routers that
actually route my traffic).
This had the rather nice side effect of confusing the heck out of their DPI
flow controllers back in the day when they were trying to rate-shape customers
in obnoxious and service-specific ways.
Since it looked like all my traffic was part of one session and it wasn’t TCP or
UDP, they didn’t know how to shape it.
The question really at hand: what happens when you need to host a new
pile of servers, need/can-justify a /24, and your hosting provider
quotes you $2560/month just for the IP space (at $10/IP)?
You probably laugh and go to some other provider or BYOA from a broker.
That'd be an incentive to look seriously at IPv6.... I *think*.
I hope so, but most likely people will continue to do the lazy thing as long as they
can get away with it.
Switching hosting providers will probably become a popular game for
the early depletion era, as providers attempt to rob each other of
customers. That's probably a losing game in the long run.
Let’s hope (that it’s a losing game).
Owen
Maybe they'll just proxy via CloudFlare to AWS.
Tony.
This won't happen. Their app only has to play nicely with NAT64 &
DN64. As long as they don't hard code IP addresses then they shouldn't
have any issues.
Regards,
Dave
> And this may trigger a refresh on routers, as people old or refurbed
> equipment find they need to change. The whole reason for the inertia
> against going to IPv6 is "it ain't broke, so I not gonna 'fix' it."Yea, well, it would be nice if upgrading existing home routers
remained legal, so we could, indeed add ipv6 capability and more.http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/
That's not guaranteed to happen, and, I'd note, it has little-to-nothing
to do with existing home 'routers' but rather wifi gear. While many
home users do have a combined NAT gateway and wireless access point,
the vast majority of them are not running custom firmware and would just
buy a new device anyways.
Part of the real problem here is that manufacturers have generally
treated devices like home 'routers' as abandonware. Usually there
is just barely enough RAM and flash on these things to hold whatever
firmware the company was intending to ship, and sometimes they would
not even see any firmware updates ever made available as the software
dev team would move on to the next device. This is the same thing we
here on this list should all be pretty scared of as the IoT stormfront
comes this way.
You're unlikely to be able to add code to handle IPv6 to a Belkin
F5D6231, which IIRC used some unusual SoC to provide its modest
services on something like 1MB of flash and 2MB RAM (it's been a
decade so the particulars may be wrong). Only in the relatively rare
cases where a manufacturer left a lot of extra room (WRT54GL, etc) are
you likely to have sufficient extra space to do updates to gear.
... JG
> The question really at hand: what happens when you need to host a new=20=
> pile of servers, need/can-justify a /24, and your hosting provider=20
> quotes you $2560/month just for the IP space (at $10/IP)?You probably laugh and go to some other provider or BYOA from a broker.
That works until all the hosting providers are charging similar rates,
and even a decade ago I saw providers who would charge you for bringing
your own space.
>=20
> That'd be an incentive to look seriously at IPv6.... I *think*.I hope so, but most likely people will continue to do the lazy thing as =
long as they
can get away with it.> Switching hosting providers will probably become a popular game for=20
> the early depletion era, as providers attempt to rob each other of
> customers. That's probably a losing game in the long run.Let=E2=80=99s hope (that it=E2=80=99s a losing game).
Just because something is a losing game doesn't mean people won't play
that game.
... JG
The question really at hand: what happens when you need to host a new=20=
pile of servers, need/can-justify a /24, and your hosting provider=20
quotes you $2560/month just for the IP space (at $10/IP)?You probably laugh and go to some other provider or BYOA from a broker.
That works until all the hosting providers are charging similar rates,
and even a decade ago I saw providers who would charge you for bringing
your own space.
I’m betting that as BYOA becomes the only way to get new customers, the charges
for BYOA will go down and the acceptance of BYOA customers will go up.
While you’re right that eventually, all the hosting providers are likely to start
charging, I think there’s a whole lot of hosting churn between here and there.
=20
That'd be an incentive to look seriously at IPv6.... I *think*.I hope so, but most likely people will continue to do the lazy thing as =
long as they
can get away with it.Switching hosting providers will probably become a popular game for=20
the early depletion era, as providers attempt to rob each other of
customers. That's probably a losing game in the long run.Let=E2=80=99s hope (that it=E2=80=99s a losing game).
Just because something is a losing game doesn't mean people won't play
that game.
Sure… Look at all the people still running windows.
Owen
The IPv4 free pool for the ARIN region is now depleted
and the world goes on
randy
The IPv4 free pool for the ARIN region is now depleted
and the world goes on
Indeed.
…then again, the real traffic growth having already moved off of IPv4 to IPv6 probably helps a bit -
<http://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/ip-protocols-software/facebook-ipv6-is-a-real-world-big-deal/a/d-id/718395>
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
What's worked for me is not signing or renewing or buying things that lack IPv6 support. I realize that may not always be possible but it does work better to require it from the sales side than as a technical problem to try and solve later.
~Seth
While you're demanding better technology you may also want to include
things like crypto in there. I've gotten proposals for things that
support IPv6 but only work with SSLv2/SSLv3 with a weak cipher and
with MD5 or SHA1 only. I've even had ones that didn't implement
certificate verification at all or say they did but then it turned out not to work at all.
Disgusting and unacceptable. (But they did support IPv6!)