Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com
IPv6 - What is it good for?
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

IPv6 - What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing?

IPv6 - How does it work?

Magnets?

OK, lets say I have some KVM servers, one has an IPv4 address and a IPv6 subnet assigned to it. Which i've assigned one address to. The other KVMs only have IPv6 subnets with one address assigned. I think I got all this right.

Now, what i want to do is run microservices on all the ipv6 only systems and what? reverse proxy? route? something else? through the ipv4 box to the ipv6 boxes.

Am I just thinking about this completely wrong? Can someone point me at a good reference, even my google-fu is failing me today!

Thanks

Thanked by 1creep
«1

Comments

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    It's there to replace IPv4.

    Some dork said that in 1990s.

    Thanked by 1kkrajk

    There are two things that make Earth spin: Money and PMS.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Moderator

    ipv6! hoo! what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!

    For LET support, please visit the support desk.

  • uptimeuptime Member
    edited July 2019

    errytime some half-ass paranoid so-called firewall decides to null-route my IPv4 (for what?!) I'm like ha! ha! ha! because I'm still ssh'd in via IPv6 so idgaf lololol ...

    And that's but one of the many reasons why every discerning gentleperson will come to insist on the IPv6 selekter for their internet connector.

    So say we all?

    the Amitz.party lives on!

  • HostSlickHostSlick Member, Provider
    edited July 2019

    What it's good for?
    Snowshoe Spamming. Cuz u got loads IPs.

    Maybe?

  • rubenruben Member, Provider

    deank said: Some dork said that in 1990s.

    I believe there was more than one person (but not more than three, considering the adoption rate) at that IETF meeting in 1998 :smiley:

    captainwasabi said: Now, what i want to do is run microservices on all the ipv6 only systems and what? reverse proxy? route? something else? through the ipv4 box to the ipv6 boxes.

    If those addresses you assigned to your IPv6 only KVMs are publicly reachable and if you have IPv6 at home you can directly use those IPv6 only services. But if you are one of those people with an ISP who does not care about IPv6 you will need to put some translation mechanism in place.
    Yes, you could set up an nginx reverse proxy on your dual-stack KVM to proxy v4 connections to v6.

    Thanked by 1uptime

    iFog GmbH - Anycast DNS & CDN; vServer in DE, UK, US, NO, CH, ES; IP-Transit, IXP VMs, RIPE LIR, BGP VMs
    Tunnelbroker - Free BGP v6/v4 Tunnels

  • ITLabsITLabs Member

    For making fancy mugs.

    Thanked by 1uptime

    #lexit | FatPal - Official LET payment gateway

  • uptimeuptime Member

    Thanked by 1ITLabs

    the Amitz.party lives on!

  • ha, well I was at least pre-supposing the provider was routig ipv6, but this does not seem to be the case, so reverse proxying is out. It seems like (if I thing about it hard, eww) that the only thing it'd be useful for is routing between containers or VMs on the same machine (or machines that are tunnelled together over a vpn). All of it more trouble than it's worth.

  • Daniel15Daniel15 Member
    edited July 2019

    ruben said: But if you are one of those people with an ISP who does not care about IPv6 you will need to put some translation mechanism in place.

    It's rare to find a good ISP that doesn't support IPv6 (at least in the USA), but you can use HE's free Tunnelbroker service in that case. https://tunnelbroker.net/

    In the USA, Facebook gets more traffic via IPv6 than IPv4, so there's definitely people using IPv6. It's very popular with mobile carriers in particular (over 95% of T-Mobile's traffic is via IPv6). https://code.fb.com/connectivity/how-ipv6-deployment-is-growing-in-u-s-and-other-countries/

    Thanked by 1uptime
  • creepcreep Member

    Nice try, Colocrossing.

    You're so tight, baby.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    Why didn’t you just paste this question into Google?

    Clouvider Limited - Leading Hosting & Connectivity Partner || Dedicated Server Sale from £39/m - Our Latest LET Offer

    Cloud Web Hosting | SSD & SAS HA OnApp VPS | US, UK, NL & DE Dedicated Servers | Network Services | Colocation | Managed Services

  • hzrhzr Member, Moderator

    Daniel15 said: In the USA, Facebook gets more traffic via IPv6 than IPv4, so there's definitely people using IPv6. It's very popular with mobile carriers in particular (over 95% of T-Mobile's traffic is via IPv6). https://code.fb.com/connectivity/how-ipv6-deployment-is-growing-in-u-s-and-other-countries/

    T-mobile doesn't actually allocate any v4 addresses to end-users anymore. They hijack DNS traffic via DPI and return fake IPv6 AAAA records (instead of A) within their own space, so you basically can't resolve anything if you need to grab a record properly anymore

  • edfoxedfox Member

    I use IPv6 because it lets me hide the SSH and VPN services in one of the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses that i get with every server.

  • jsgjsg Member

    @captainwasabi asked:
    IPv6 - What is it good for?

    It's good for very much increasing the risk of software that kind of worked to not work properly anymore. Plus it's great for creating a massive workload for support people and help desks.

    Additionally it serves well as a strong reminder to not have major technology changes designed in mental asylums.

    Thanked by 2uptime willK

    Thanks no.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Moderator

    21 years...still hasn't hit 30% of traffic.

    ipv6 is a failure. It will eventually become dominant, sure, but if that takes 30 years, that's just pathetic. Turns out that refusing to consider backwards compatibility was a big mistake. What a shock!

    Thanked by 2gazmull willK

    For LET support, please visit the support desk.

  • @hzr said:

    Daniel15 said: In the USA, Facebook gets more traffic via IPv6 than IPv4, so there's definitely people using IPv6. It's very popular with mobile carriers in particular (over 95% of T-Mobile's traffic is via IPv6). https://code.fb.com/connectivity/how-ipv6-deployment-is-growing-in-u-s-and-other-countries/

    T-mobile doesn't actually allocate any v4 addresses to end-users anymore. They hijack DNS traffic via DPI and return fake IPv6 AAAA records (instead of A) within their own space, so you basically can't resolve anything if you need to grab a record properly anymore

    that has nothing to do with DPI, that is 464XLAT https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877
    I don't know what some ppl have with IPv6, works better than IPv4 for me, maybe their brains stop working if they see hex instead of simple numbers?

  • vyas11vyas11 Member

    @user54321 said:

    I don't know what some ppl have with IPv6, works better than IPv4 for me, maybe their brains stop working if they see hex instead of simple numbers?

    Maybe some simply get hexed by hex.

  • hzrhzr Member, Moderator
    edited July 2019

    user54321 said: that has nothing to do with DPI, that is 464XLAT

    Sorry, my bad. I was confusing it with the last incidents. Before they moved to 100% 464 they were directly hijacking all DNS traffic to serve their spammy "no domain found" ad search page - this includes static routing common resolvers like 8.8.8.8 into their own resolver and redirecting ALL tcp/53 and udp/53 traffic exiting their network.

    Edit: I'm tethered right now and only get t-mobile assigned IP space AAAA returned. There are no A records. There are no DNS records starting with 64::

  • jsgjsg Member

    @raindog308 said:
    ipv6 is a failure. It will eventually become dominant,...

    I would have agreed for quite some time but meanwhile I'm not so sure anymore. There have been some developments (e.g. SNI allowing to have many sites on 1 IP) that helped a lot, there still are some very large IP blocks that can be return to the public pool, and there are some more reasons to hope for IP4 living a bit longer and to eventually be replaced by something designed by people with working brains (like a 64 bit, IP4 compatible as far as any possible IPx version).

    And then there is also the 800 pound gorilla of not yet fully used NAT along with the fact that (I guess) 95+% of IPs actually are consumer end point which could be "NAT compressed" by a factor of 100 and beyond.
    That and the other seriously big gorilla of billions and billions having been invested in infrastructure, much of which would need to be replaced for IPv6, go hand in hand, meaning that carriers very highly likely will compress the consumer IP space even more in order to have more space for hosting IPs.

    Last but not least: price. IP4 started being all but thrown at anyone who wanted some and still are relatively cheap - which almost necessarily translates to wasting. Once people (mostly companies) needing say 16 IPs need to pay 80$/€ per month for those IPs both not wasting them anymore and selling not really needed IPs will enhance the situation.

    Probably I should say that some political action would be needed and helpful too (like a college not really needing a /16) but I guess that makes no sense as politicians quite reliably fail to really address and solve problems.

    Thanked by 1ricardo

    Thanks no.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Moderator

    jsg said: Last but not least: price. IP4 started being all but thrown at anyone who wanted some and still are relatively cheap - which almost necessarily translates to wasting. Once people (mostly companies) needing say 16 IPs need to pay 80$/€ per month for those IPs both not wasting them anymore and selling not really needed IPs will enhance the situation.

    Probably I should say that some political action would be needed and helpful too (like a college not really needing a /16) but I guess that makes no sense as politicians quite reliably fail to really address and solve problems.

    Preach it, brother! I have not seen ipv4 prices explode due to scarcity, but then I only see the pricing as a factor in what I pay for VPS services.

    I think the ipv4 market will be where it is for a long time - companies and large organizations selling blocks once the hassle of renumbering becomes profitable, further use of NAT, etc.

    For LET support, please visit the support desk.

  • One of the reasons I'm looking into this is because I'm getting users that can't access services on non-standard ports (in one case they only allow access over port 443). This is causing me to need more IPv4 addresses because https://some.service.com:8443 is blocked from their end. IPs aren't expensive, and I could go in and re-architect my services to push everything through a reverse proxy, but I just thought I'd see if IP6 was viable.

  • @captainwasabi said:
    One of the reasons I'm looking into this is because I'm getting users that can't access services on non-standard ports (in one case they only allow access over port 443). This is causing me to need more IPv4 addresses because https://some.service.com:8443 is blocked from their end. IPs aren't expensive, and I could go in and re-architect my services to push everything through a reverse proxy, but I just thought I'd see if IP6 was viable.

    Sure go ahead with IPv6, everything works, the only problem are idiots that don't support it. If everybody would just implemented it no matter if they needed or not IPv4 would be already dead for 20 years, but there is always somebody who thinks, I don't need it so i don't support it. I do it now the same way and removed IPv4 support for many of my services because and give a fuck about users without IPv6.

  • WebProjectWebProject Member, Provider

    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    VPS Price Match Guarantee on: All our range of DDOS protected XEN-HVM VPS Plans
    Are you looking for best price for self-managed VPS? See WebProVPS website for more details.
  • @WebProject said:
    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    like i said idiots that can't be bothered, they all could support IPv6 if they want to, the equipment they use does support it.

  • @edfox said:
    I use IPv6 because it lets me hide the SSH and VPN services in one of the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses that i get with every server.

    Same here, I hide my SSH (IPv4 disabled for SSH) behind one of those above numbers and all my domains have unique IP addresses, not like IPv4 one IP shared with all my domains.

  • It have many IPs.

  • @user54321 said:

    @WebProject said:
    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    like i said idiots that can't be bothered, they all could support IPv6 if they want to, the equipment they use does support it.

    Sounds like you're not familiar with how most businesses are run. If they don't NEED to spend the money, effort and resources, don't. Being able to put off a decision as long as possible is generally the best approach.

    I mean, for the Canadian ISPs with IPv4 subnets coming out their asses, they avoided at least three failed early IPv6 implementations and all the support hassle it would have caused.

  • vyas11vyas11 Member
    edited July 2019

    @TimboJones said:

    @user54321 said:

    @WebProject said:
    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    like i said idiots that can't be bothered, they all could support IPv6 if they want to, the equipment they use does support it.

    Sounds like you're not familiar with how most businesses are run. If they don't NEED to spend the money, effort and resources, don't. Being able to put off a decision as long as possible is generally the best approach.

    >

    Agreed. Most large businesses are like this. Herd mentality. Don't kill the cash cow. Whatever you want to call it.Many small businesses OTOH do not have the resources to invest in future. Usually collections on Account Receivables take up a lot of bandwidth. Now where's my list of accounts that are past due...

  • WebProjectWebProject Member, Provider

    @user54321 said:

    @WebProject said:
    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    like i said idiots that can't be bothered, they all could support IPv6 if they want to, the equipment they use does support it.

    they do have valid excuses - cost and not all devices do support it!

    VPS Price Match Guarantee on: All our range of DDOS protected XEN-HVM VPS Plans
    Are you looking for best price for self-managed VPS? See WebProVPS website for more details.
  • WebProject said: they do have valid excuses - cost and not all devices do support it!

    So you're saying that an ISP in 2019 is still running equipment that doesn't support IPv6? Like what?

    Thanked by 1Daniel15
  • @WebProject said:

    @user54321 said:

    @WebProject said:
    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    like i said idiots that can't be bothered, they all could support IPv6 if they want to, the equipment they use does support it.

    they do have valid excuses - cost and not all devices do support it!

    Like today it rained so we won't deploy IPv6 for the next 20 years or what? So you want that ICANN sets a deadline and they will remove all IPv4 allocations at 6/6/2020?

  • @ITLabs said:
    For making fancy mugs.

    or or or

    "> @TimboJones said:

    @user54321 said:

    @WebProject said:
    Some ISP providers do support some still don't know anything about it, example:
    EE mobile - IPv6 enabled
    EE broadband - No
    Vodafone Mobile - No
    Three Network - No
    BT - partially using

    like i said idiots that can't be bothered, they all could support IPv6 if they want to, the equipment they use does support it.

    Sounds like you're not familiar with how most businesses are run. If they don't NEED to spend the money, effort and resources, don't. Being able to put off a decision as long as possible is generally the best approach.

    I mean, for the Canadian ISPs with IPv4 subnets coming out their asses, they avoided at least three failed early IPv6 implementations and all the support hassle it would have caused.

    coughs bell

    To be fair, they added native V6 to their mobile/data network a few months ago. Still waiting for V6 on fibre...

    Note: Rogers got native V6 on broadband a while back iirc

    Thanked by 1ITLabs
  • jsgjsg Member
    edited July 2019

    @user54321 said:
    Sure go ahead with IPv6, everything works, the only problem are idiots that don't support it. If everybody would just implemented it no matter if they needed or not IPv4 would be already dead for 20 years, but there is always somebody who thinks, I don't need it so i don't support it. I do it now the same way and removed IPv4 support for many of my services because and give a fuck about users without IPv6.

    You obviously do not understand how both business and networking works.
    No sane company just implements something, no matter wther they need it or not, especially if implementing it does not mean to flick a switch or to spend some hundred bucks but lots of money and lots of problems and risks.

    Plus anyone with a working brain asks first "Why and what for?". The common answer usually was that we are running out of IP4 addresses. Soon. Frighteningly soon.

    Well that turned out to be wrong for many, many years - which is no surprise considering where ISPs are -> right between millions of customers and the internet. So of course they first asked how they could keep running their operation with a cheaper and less grave solution.

    Just in case you really want to understand what you are talking about: the problem never really was that IP4 doesn't provide enough addresses. The real problem was a lack of thinking and an attitude that created lots and lots of wasting. Wasting as in throwing a /16 at schools or as in server software that could serve only one single domain. DNS not providing port information is another good example for a lack of thinking that lead to waste.

    Thanks no.

  • user54321user54321 Member
    edited July 2019

    @jsg i don't care about what ppl think, the normal process is you deprecate stuff after it got replaced by something, that worked for pretty much anything that got a internet standard, only IPv4 simply won't die. And it should have 2000 died.

  • @user54321
    Surely it's a bit of a platitude to expect an entire world's worth of hardware and software to seamlessly switch to another protocol... for an ideal. Although IPv4 is scarce I've never heard of that fact preventing people from doing anything meaningful - probably more the opposite in fact, prevents people from doing non-meaningful stuff without paying a few bucks for an IP.

    In the end someone has to pay, whether it's for the jacked rates of IPv4, implementing IPv6, or paying someone who paid for it.

    Thanked by 1uptime
  • hzrhzr Member, Moderator

    ricardo said: Surely it's a bit of a platitude to expect an entire world's worth of hardware and software to seamlessly switch to another protocol... for an ideal.

    It has been multiple decades

    Thanked by 1skorous
  • user54321user54321 Member
    edited July 2019

    guys internet standards don't work like a company, if they would there would be no internet anymore.

  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited July 2019

    hzr said: It has been multiple decades

    With no inherent need to upgrade. See the previous post.

    It's either market forces or law that changes things, not ideals about having 2^xxx IPs for every atom in the universe.

    In any event I prefer the previously mentioned idea of a 64-bit address, much more friendly for processing and more than enough.

    user54321 said: guys internet standards don't work like a company, if they would there would be no internet anymore.

    Bit of a vacuous statement, shirley.

  • @hzr said:

    ricardo said: Surely it's a bit of a platitude to expect an entire world's worth of hardware and software to seamlessly switch to another protocol... for an ideal.

    It has been multiple decades

    And it would be another two decades if not for the billions the US government put into vendors pockets to subsidize and pay for R&D and development. You can ask many of the network players how much and how many customers cared about IPv6 last decade. I remember Ixia guy telling me the US government throwing money at them for years and pretty much only them.

  • jsgjsg Member

    @user54321 said:
    @jsg i don't care about what ppl think,

    How then do you understand their decisions?

    the normal process is you deprecate stuff after it got replaced by something, that worked for pretty much anything that got a internet standard, only IPv4 simply won't die. And it should have 2000 died.

    IP4 -> IPv6 is not like a car for a taxi business that gets replaced. Changing to IPv6 would be much much more and much more complicated than simply changing equipment.

    Btw. IPv6 itself has seen quite some changes in those 20 years - and for a reason I guess.

    @user54321 said:
    guys internet standards don't work like a company, if they would there would be no internet anymore.

    That's simply BS. If you ever looked how internet standards come to life you would see that most of them are with very heavy involvement of (usually large) corporations - in part for sensible reasons and in part for not so sensible ones.

    Thanked by 1uptime

    Thanks no.

  • @jsg said:

    @user54321 said:
    @jsg i don't care about what ppl think,

    How then do you understand their decisions?

    most of them are based on greed so it is a waste of time.

    the normal process is you deprecate stuff after it got replaced by something, that worked for pretty much anything that got a internet standard, only IPv4 simply won't die. And it should have 2000 died.

    IP4 -> IPv6 is not like a car for a taxi business that gets replaced. Changing to IPv6 would be much much more and much more complicated than simply changing equipment.

    Btw. IPv6 itself has seen quite some changes in those 20 years - and for a reason I guess.

    so you still telnet in your servers?

    @user54321 said:
    guys internet standards don't work like a company, if they would there would be no internet anymore.

    That's simply BS. If you ever looked how internet standards come to life you would see that most of them are with very heavy involvement of (usually large) corporations - in part for sensible reasons and in part for not so sensible ones.

    So the goal of a internet standard is infinite growth? If the consensus is reached wich it has with publishing the rfc there is no goal beyond that. There is only greed of companys to save some cents and shit on their customers with not enabling it. Nobody needs to write implementations for IPv6 anymore they just need to adopt their configs.

    Thanked by 1skorous
  • jsgjsg Member

    @user54321 said:
    most of them are based on greed so it is a waste of time.

    I don't think that most decisions of the people are based on greed. Stupidity comes to mind as a far more important factor but there are many more.

    so you still telnet in your servers?

    I didn't say that I am against real progress - which IPv6 is not.

    So the goal of a internet standard is infinite growth?

    No. Growth is certainly one factor, btw. in academia often too, but there are more factors. And obviously not all business segments are in agreement; it just so happened that the pro IPv6 won this time, maybe even because committees (incl. the business interests there) can decide a lot of funny things but still they decide only how something is to be implemented if it is implemented - that however, if it's done, isn't decided in standards committees (but in board rooms).

    Btw, you are implying (and alleging) a lot here, e.g. "business == desire for infinite growth (or greed)" There are counter examples so your logic is flawed.

    Thanks no.

  • Wow, perhaps 10 years later, people will still be arguing with each others why IPv6 is needed. :)

  • jsgjsg Member
    edited August 2019

    @try4lontalk said:
    Wow, perhaps 10 years later, people will still be arguing with each others why IPv6 is needed. :)

    No. What I am discussing is

    • do we really need a successor to IP4?
    • and if we do need one then what requirements would that successor need to meet?

    Re the first question: Probably yes, sooner or later, but the real reasons is mostly not (yet) a real need but rather the long time wasting of IP4.
    Re the second question: Funnily (and sadly and shockingly) we still haven't thought a lot about that. Basically all we have so far is what a bunch of idiots came up with plus hysterically "convinced" proponents of their "solution" (IPv6).

    Real engineers would look at and think about both questions and they would keep feasibility in mind (like "is that reasonable with todays processors?). Plus they would have a well founded basis for their numbers rather than offering BS. Finally and importantly real engineers would come up with a solution which sensibly extends what we have now, among other reasons to make changing from IP4 to IPx easy and practical. One typical scheme to do that is to include the current IP4 address space a "region zero" of the new one.
    Example (simple, stupid, just for the sake of explanation): IPx adds 4 bytes to the current 4 bytes (total len 64 bits) but (a) only uses the lower 2 new bytes (the upper 2 bytes being zero) for some time, and (b) '0.0.0.0.a.b.c.d' would be the current IP4 address space and would be perfectly valid. All existing network equipment could work with that and only core (major backbone) equipment would need to be replaced/extended to handle full IPx (all 64 bits).

    Plus smart people would learn from the grave errors that were made with IP4 (the wasting) and would develop reasonable hand out rules like "everybody asking for it can get 16 IPs but to get more you have to provide a sensible case". Additionally it would seem reasonable to have some partitioning of the address space like 0.a.b.c.d to 15.a.b.c.d (16 times the total current address space!) is "wild" (no partitioning) and all higher ranges are partitioned in purpose (e.g. "servers", "end users", "phone") as well as regional spaces (in a fair and reasonable scheme and not like back then like "plenty for the USA and then some more, and the small rest for the whole world"). China and India, for example obviously would get a much bigger enduse space than the USA.

    Well, whatever, one thing is clear: IPv6 is not a reasonable answer to the relevant questions but the result of too much drugs in the mental asylum.

    Thanks no.

  • Thanked by 2user54321 maverickp

    |post4vps| for a free vps for your developement| me |

  • jsgjsg Member

    @perryoo11 said:

    Bad image. It should say "IPv6" and the guy shouldn't say "to keep her running" but "to make her running".

    Thanks no.

  • @jsg said:

    @perryoo11 said:

    Bad image. It should say "IPv6" and the guy shouldn't say "to keep her running" but "to make her running".

  • jsgjsg Member

    @user54321

    I disagree with you re IPv6 but I think that you are neither stupid nor trolling.

    Thanks no.

  • @jsg said:
    @user54321

    I disagree with you re IPv6 but I think that you are neither stupid nor trolling.

    your argument that IPv6 would be more expensive is BS, or is a IPv4 only VPS cheaper than a NAT one with IPv6, no? There are even hosters like scaleway that have IPv6 only VPS which charge you for IPv4 from the first address.
    Have you ever used IPv6?

  • @user54321 said:

    @jsg said:
    @user54321

    I disagree with you re IPv6 but I think that you are neither stupid nor trolling.

    your argument that IPv6 would be more expensive is BS, or is a IPv4 only VPS cheaper than a NAT one with IPv6, no? There are even hosters like scaleway that have IPv6 only VPS which charge you for IPv4 from the first address.
    Have you ever used IPv6?

    Dude, you are so clueless. All the companies who make networking products would have increased costs in software and hardware development. A shit ton of money. QA work more than doubles. I worked for a company that made wimax radios and when the costs to add IPv6 support was mentioned to the customer, they said they didn't need it. So if it's free, they want it. If they need to pay for development, they don't.

Sign In or Register to comment.