On 25/05/2020 20:02, Paul Mansfield wrote:
Looking back at Y2K, would all that effort have been put in to kill
off old services and tidy up all the cr*p if there hadn't been a fixed
deadline? As to the Jan 19 2038 problem, how many of us hope to be
retired by then, or will we be dragged out of retirement?!
That's not actually 100% true. There was a look of activity and a
lot of IT refresh. But a lot blundered on.
In 2006 I was in my local hospital and watched my friend working at a PC
with a sticker on it saying `not Y2K compliant, not the be used after
1st Jan 2020'
A company I did some work for spent £45k on a new manufacturing system.
The supplier would not certify as Y2K compliant. And then when they
realised the old one still worked, they used the old one
What I'm getting at, is that
Personally. I've been pestering suppliers for IPv6 for over 12 years.
Some delivered, some haven't. There are people buying devices today
they probably expect to last 10 years, which can't do IPv6.
On 26/05/2020 09:33, Tom Bird wrote:
The 3 men and a dog local IT companies that set their shitty draytek
router up don't understand it.
Yes, they turn it off. No business need. And breaks dual WAN
failover from 2 consumer ISPs. And really easy to login to the
printer by typing 192.168.1.27. Really hard to remember
2001:678:424:b201:70c9:54ff:fe8a:68bf. (I've taken my printers away
from IPv6 for this exact reason)
(one of my friends is tech lead at an IT installations company. He wants
to test IPv6 incase a customer asks. But neither his co-lo provider
(zen) or leased line provider (talk talk) will do IPv6. (I'll sort him
some VPN))
On the other hand if you enable it on things like student halls and
public wifi hotspots then it takes a *lot* of the load off your NAT
devices and this is really great.
I agree. I think this one of the true business drivers. Dual stack
saves IPv4 nat ports. And I think a single point of failure for many
networks.
Ditto for the mobile networks doing 464 xlat. You get IPv6, facebook
and google goes V6, way less ports in CGNAT. This is working on my
Three mobile iPhone today, in the UK and just works. And not something
I asked for. (might not be xlat, but looks like it. I don't think it
is NAT64, because DNS lookups seem ok. I've working v6 and v4 with no
v4 IP address.)
I think Mythic beasts have proved that IPv4 addresses per server not
strictly necessary for hosting websites which are still accessible over
IPv4. Again, a business reason to save cost. And CDNs can offer content
on IPv6 only hosts as consumer IPv6 takes off; More hosts on IPv6 than IPv4.
The other one is the really big companies. They want IPv6 to avoid
overlapping RFC1918 networks. If you include government in that, then
it might push devices to support IPv6.
So there are ways for content hosters to save IPv4 addresses. And ways
for eyeball networks to save IPv4 addresses. And there will always be
some website not on IPv4. And some ISP that doesn't offer IPv6, and
some installer who turns off IPv6
And as such, there are many ways to stretch out IPv4. As the value of
IPv4 space goes up, more people might find ways to release what they
don't need.
And I don't know what the answer looks like.
--
Tim Bray
Huddersfield, GB
t...@kooky.org
+44 7966479015
