- Solutionselected by Sir_Fred
Already discussed at the link below!
[https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Archiv-Internet/Vorteile-IPv6-als-Konsument/td-p/326025](https://community.swisscom.ch/t5/Archiv-Internet/Vorteile- IPv6-as-consumer/td-p/326025)
Installationen, Netzwerk, Internet, Computertechnik, OS Windows, Apple und Linux.
@Sir_Fred wrote:
Thanks for the link, even if the posts are a bit older. But I assume that the opinions are still the same….
So my opinion on this matter is still as innovative today as it was back then
In the past 4 years, client-side IPv6 penetration in Switzerland has roughly tripled, which is worth noting that Swisscom is there made a significant contribution. Globally, penetration has even caught up by a factor of 10 from 2.5% to over 25%, which means that Switzerland’s role has changed from the former pioneer has been put back into perspective as a fellow swimmer.
At my workplace, IPv6 accounts for around two-thirds of internal network traffic. Dual stack operation has been working for years without the slightest problem. For a few months now we have even had productive servers in IPv6-only operation, without any restrictions for the clients.
That’s why: Go for it - make your network IPv6-ready!
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
There are also stickers that you can print out and stick on your plastic router. If you deactivate this in 2018, it would be a good time to make yourself known.
Well, the Internet Booster should already have this sticker ready…
If the larger providers want to offer something like IPv4 in the future, as much traffic as possible must be handled via the current IP version.
@Sir_Fred wrote:
Thanks for the link, even if the posts are a bit older. But I assume that the opinions are still the same….
Many greetings
Sir_Fred
Correctly.
As the saying goes: “Those who were declared dead live longer.”
Apart from IPv4, there is probably nothing else in the network world that this saying would fit better.
To date, even major IPv6 proponents have not been able to tell me any significant advantage of IPv6 over IPv4 for me as an average user in a private household.
And IPv6 is also not a big issue with customers (from SME to Multi) where I am in contact almost daily, mainly in the area of VoIP. A few years ago, customers sent entire ICT departments to courses and people “played around” with it in their labs in order to justify the expensive course visits, but hardly anyone actually uses it consciously (except that it is activated by default on the PCs). ).
@hed wrote:
To date, even major IPv6 proponents have not been able to tell me any significant advantage of IPv6 over IPv4 for me as an average user in a private household. […]
I have found that even average users easily understand and accept the benefits of IPv6 if it is briefly explained to them. Vint Cerf explains this e.g. in 2 minutes simply and understandably (in English).
A prerequisite, of course, is that you first understand the matter yourself. A basic understanding of how the Internet works and its historical and current development would be a good start.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
@PowerMac wrote:
@hed wrote:
To date, even major IPv6 proponents have not been able to tell me any significant advantage of IPv6 over IPv4 for me as an average user in a private household. […]
I have found that even average users easily understand and accept the benefits of IPv6 if it is briefly explained to them. Vint Cerf explains this e.g. in 2 minutes simply and understandably (in English).
A prerequisite, of course, is that you first understand the matter yourself. A basic understanding of how the Internet works and its historical and current development would be a good start.
What does the address shortage of public addresses have to do with IPv6 in the private LAN? Right, absolutely nothing.
End users on the LAN with a 192.168.x.x address or even multinational companies in the 10.x.x.x range are unaffected, at least in the internal private address range.
As an Internet evangelist, VintCerf can preach as long as he wants about the fact that the message does not reach the LAN environment. This is shown by the fact that even for large customers, IPv6 is usually not even mentioned as a must criterion in tenders for communication projects.
In the meantime, all major network companies and providers agree that IPv6 will not replace IPv4, at least in the next 20 - 30 years, but will “only” complement it. Sure, the further expansion of mobile, IoT, intelligent buildings and much more. are not possible without IPv6.
But again, I’m only talking about the user who has a PC connected to the LAN and sends a few emails every day, surfs the Internet, watches a few videos and streams music in the background. It makes absolutely no difference to him whether his PC has a private IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or, in the sense of multistack, both. VintCerf’s film doesn’t change that.
It is the wrong view to look for advantages.
The address space of IPv4 is consumed/limited, IPv6 solves this problem. Now where do you want to look for an advantage, it’s just a fact that you have to deal with. It simply doesn’t make sense to NAT everything or work with bridges if at some point it will no longer be necessary.
Of course, there are also advantages such as the fact that it works much more easily. It takes, for example, no more DHCP server. One less source of error. > Advantage (I won’t go into the topic that, depending on the OS, a counterpart to DHCP, namely DHCPv6, is currently necessary for DNS. We are still a long way from a single stack 🙂
So IPv6 has an advantage in terms of autoconfig, especially for private individuals who don’t want to worry about anything.
I recommend everyone to look into IPv6. IPv6 is not a 1:1 replacement for IPv4.
Not just a change from 32bit to 128. Not just a change from binary to hex and back to decimal/binary.
A lot is changing regarding address assignment and configuration. Filter rules suddenly become more important. You can segment networks much more beautifully, etc.
No expensive course helps, only experience and you get that in live operation. It’s easiest to get these at home.
It is also clear to me that a RUAG, for example. For other reasons, they don’t even grant IPv6 access to their clients as quickly. But they have completely different problems 😄
You should switch forums like this or heise to IPv6 only. Then there would be peace.
People can only be convinced by advantages. You can talk endlessly about how harmful combustion engines are to your health, but no one cares. Only when an alternative is available that has more advantages than disadvantages will people switch.
You can also ask yourself why hardly anyone is interested in IPv4 and then start there. Of course, the statistics of IPv6 are pointing upwards, but that’s no wonder when all devices that are delivered have v4 and v6 activated by default. As already mentioned, it is hardly an issue in network projects and that shows me that acceptance is not there (yet). No additional benefit is seen when using IPv6.
But we can also turn the tables and talk about the disadvantages of IPv4. For example, what is the disadvantage if a company operates thousands of IP devices in the private area 10.x.x.x on the LAN? This means that the company does not use any of the scarce, valuable IPv4 addresses. And as long as you are still far away from the v6 single stack, using v6 only involves additional effort. This is difficult to reconcile with society’s ever-increasing stingy-is-nice mentality, because it also has an impact on companies. The introduction of v6 must also bring financial benefits in the short or at least medium term, otherwise it has no chance. Think long-term or Nowadays no one is allowed to think and plan anymore. But that’s exactly what the “generation project” IPv4 -> IPv6 is all about.
IPv6 is cheaper than all the effort you have to manage legacy IP and you [even reach the limits] (https://blog.apnic.net/2017/01/19/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/). Even with 10/8 it’s over.
Smart companies that already use dual stack only operate their internal servers on IPv6.
But these are philosophies. You either look for solutions or push the problems away.
If everyone in science reduced their activities to their existence, we would still be knocking stones together today and watching the sparks in amazement. Of course you can also limit yourself to your existence. You see it in politics. You can get so far that you can even lead the United States. Because the other generations can clean up the piles of broken glass…
If you’re starting to feel like your ICT department is dull and expensive, you can get alternative opinions here. Cheaper, more modern, better, promised 😄
Meanwhile, I’ll wait until pfSense can do NAT64
@hed wrote:
What does the address shortage of public addresses have to do with IPv6 in private LANs? Right, absolutely nothing.
End users on the LAN with a 192.168.x.x address or even multinational companies in the 10.x.x.x range are unaffected, at least in the internal private address range.
Google was already running at the limit of the RFC1918 address space in 2011, Microsoft announced the same [in January 2017](https ://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft). q.e.d.
Even with “smaller fish” there is always considerable brain pain when two companies want to exchange data directly between their networks for whatever reason, but both chose the same RFC1918 address range a long time ago.
[…] But again, I’m talking exclusively about the user who has a PC connected to the LAN and sends a few emails every day, surfs the Internet, watches a few videos and streams music in the background. It makes absolutely no difference to him whether his PC has a private IPv4 address, an IPv6 address or, in the sense of multistack, both. VintCerf’s film doesn’t change that.
Completely agree: For the end user it doesn’t matter whether v4, v6 or both. Why do you always get so upset when someone here recommends turning IPv6 on or not off?
The genius of the Internet was originally the network itself: every participant worldwide can communicate directly with every other participant. The crutch of NAT has now almost completely destroyed this end-to-end principle, so that many people no longer even understand the possibilities that arise from it. You shovel all the data into the cloud and get it from there anyway, why just communicate with each other directly? Already in 2009, Lorenzo Colitti noted: “The killer application of IPv6 is the survival of the open Internet as we know it ”. Personally, I find the introduction of IPv6 extremely exciting: the foundation of the entire Internet is being rebuilt during ongoing operations, so that it will probably outlast our generation. And we can actively participate in this new building and maybe tell our grandchildren about it.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
I would like it if all the effort for the endless discussions were put into planning and implementing the migration. In my opinion this is inevitable.
Somehow there seem to be more and more people in the network area who don’t want to continue their education and are terrified of change.
The lack of IPv4 addresses is leading to a rapid increase in BGP routes, which will soon cause some routers to crash again (1 million routes, sometime in 2019).
Just so there are no misunderstandings:
I have absolutely nothing against IPv6, quite the opposite. As early as 1995, the then IPnG protocol based on RFC 1752 was at least marginally discussed in my network courses.
From 1998 onwards, IPv6 was an important and broad topic in network seminars for trainees as well as technicians and engineers in further training. IPv6 was also always an important topic in the courses for managers and management team members. Of course, the whole thing is conveyed according to level and needs.
Despite (or because of?) the early and decades-long contact with the topic, I have never mutated into an IPv6 disciple or freak, but I always try to keep reality in mind and also adopt a very critical attitude. And it is precisely this view, which is repeatedly confirmed to me in my daily dealings with ICT managers, that I try to convey here in the forum.
And again, I am not speaking from the perspective of a WAN or provider, nor from the perspective of an IANA, RIR or LIR, but rather from the perspective of private and industrial ICT users. In the business environment, decision-makers (including the CIO) are not concerned with technical interests, but with business arguments and decisions. The reluctance of decision-makers when it comes to IPv6 has very little to do with fear of change, but primarily with (short-term) ROI, profit, rationalization, profit maximization…
Even the most conservative establishment is currently jumping on the blockchain bandwagon, almost driven by final panic, because it promises financial miracles and savings in the double-digit percentage range. In addition, you can use the topic of blockchain to promote yourself to the general public. And even the Federal Council is taking up the issue of BC in order to make its mark.
And what about IPv6? This is not the case across the board, because except for the network suppliers and integrators, the industry sees no or only small $ signs in the eyes. And because the general public is not interested in the topic of IPv6, you can’t win any money with it in terms of marketing and image.
So please, look at the topic not only through the technologically euphoric pink network glasses, but also from the perspective of business administration, marketing and society.
I don’t get upset, but I’m allergic to freaks and self-proclaimed evangelists. And I don’t feel the need to brag to my grandchildren about their heroic deeds as saviors of this world and part of modern world history.
On the topic of deactivating IPv6 on the Internet Box, is there another plausible reason why you should do that?
Somehow I don’t see anyone like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDruL82NBbw