Hello, On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 05:15:15PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:04:13 +0000 > Andy Smith <a...@strugglers.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 10:44:54AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I guess if I read that right, Verizon still supports IPv4 and has not > > > announced any plans to discontinue it? > > > > That would be commercial suicide. At present you have to go out of > > your way to buy IPv6-only services. > > I may be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but T-Mobile > wireless is IPv6 only (and uses its own (now standardized as RFC 6877) > 464XLAT protocol to talk to IPv4 only networks:
The context of the question was about a provider with existing end to end IPv4 support hypothetically "discontinuing" IPv4 in favour of IPv6, instead of just introducing v6 along side. I did mention in a later email in this thread that some end user networks, especially mobile ones, are v6-only and use 464XLAT or similar to talk to the IPv4 Internet. But I was simplifying this for the poster who feared that they might no longer be able to use IPv4 at all. That's what I meant would be commercial suicide. At some point it will be more costly for the provider to do IPv4+CGNAT than v6-only + 464XLAT, due to the larger amount of traffic being able to go end to end IPv6. It seems likely that deployments that are already v4-only or dual stack might stay that way, while new deployments choose between CGNAT or things like 464XLAT for their IPv4 support. More and more hosting providers are adding IPv4 connectivity as a billable line item, and often on these services you can avoid paying for that and end up with a service that is v6-only. They sometimes do have something like 464XLAT, or sometimes are truly IPv6-only (unless you do your own 464XLAT). That's what I meant by going out of your way to get such a service. On the eyeball network side it's much harder to get by without access to the v4 Internet. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. — John Levine