New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
You may be surprised, but US no longer owns the internet, they will have to adapt if the asians make the switch, and if there is an EU directive and incentives, the whole castle of cards will drop.
And the internet of things will not use IPv4, nobody will want to bother with complicated NATed setups, I know because i have to go to various people and setup things as simple as their Wi-Fi network, whoever banks on more than 5 years of IPv4 dominance is wrong. It is 3 at best, maybe 5 in which you can still sell your pile of IPv4, after that will not be worth the transaction costs.
Also, citizen's internet will not be based on IPs at all, but it may take longer than 5 years to become a credible alternative to the official, state-controlled one. (you may insert your laughs here)
Well, maybe (if popular demand supports it) we should only lists hosts on LowEndBox.com that support IPv6.
No IPv6 == no joy.
Multiple IPv4 with a VPS == you're wasting resources.
I am serious. More than 50 thanks to this post and it will become policy: no IPv6 === no listing on LowEndBox.com. Anybody/anything trying to stop that (for political reasons) will get the full load.
You are likely to get demoted for that. You wont be allowing CC basically.
I am not sure this si the right thread, though, but there are many people with a "political" agenda which asked for this for a long time, I presume 50 thanks are not hard to get even in an almost unrelated thread in a seemingly random post.
I am Brit not an American, you are preaching to the converted.
But this is not about government, this is about free-market economics and the basic concept of capitalism which is alive and kicking both in North America, Europe and Asia (with the exception of a few Commi countries).
Companies exist to make money and companies control the Internet and every other market out there. Thats why when companies like Apple release another iteration of the iPhone and shout jump, millions of people run out to the shops and quickly give Apple all their hard earned cash.
So as the IPv4 gets more scarce, as will happen with oil and many other finite supplied resource, up will go the price. Its not in any for-profit companies benefit to prevent that from happening. If I was sitting on some /16's I would be rubbing my hands together about now and just waiting for my 'stock' to balloon and it will happen. These next few years will make many people millionaires overnight.
On your point about NAT, most carriers are moving towards CGNAT. I was in a meeting two weeks ago with Alcatel and the big demand they are seeing is NAT. NAT is a whole lot easier to implement than IPv6 because IPv4 works on EVERY DSL/cable router irrespective how crappy it is. So again from an economic perspective which company wants to flood their support staff with calls from customers who want to know why their IP addresses are suddenly so long and look like something from a PI memoriser's wet-dream.
I reckon IPv4 will still be dominant 10 years from now. Mark it in your diary and if this site is still live then (may even have IPv6 connectivity by then
), we'll compare notes. But I am certain that IPv4 will still be ruling the roost in 2025.
Remember people have been farting around with IPv6 since 1996, this adoption rate is slower than human evolution. Thats 20 years and still no-one is jumping around for it, I reckon there are more people driving electric cars than commercially using IPv6.
That.
Whilst its a nice idea, its only going to penalise one company and its resellers; and they are the people paying your salary!
It has nothing do with the US. No relevant entities in any country give a shit about IPv6, and they will continue not giving a shit until the cost of not implementing IPv6 exceeds that of lost opportunities.
That's a very long way off. Despite the fantasy many people like to believe, end users do not, and will not, drive IPv6 adoption.
IPv6 is a horrendously designed addressing scheme from a transition standpoint, and this is the result.
Long time ago i predicted that CC will implement ipv6 when ARIN runs out of ipv4. So maybe the time has come?
That'd be a culling, that's for sure. I'm for it but I think you're going to get some blowback.
Francisco
We will never reach 50 i guess, set it to 25, to give us a chance.
@Infinity580 I rather think the 50 will be hit at least tomorrow.
Apply rule to LET too.
Umm, not really, at least, not here. That is the error many people make.
People do not care on what internet runs, they want it cheap and ubiquitous. I am fortunate to live in a country where this is already happening. I have right now 5 internet connection at home of which 3 mobile, I dont even have the patience to setup NAT and follow the IPs setup, EXCEPT when i need to keep data local only. They cost in total some 20 Eur a month, if I had only one to share to all devices would have probably be only marginally cheaper and have no redundancy.
The things are changing fast, even your dear Apple products are IPv6 ready and can use it whenever available, because people do not know how to configure firewalls easily so they can continue to collect their data when IPv4 is blocked.
Also, many people will try to use IPv6, following Tor's example, since it adds some burden on censors, they have to maintain 2 different lists of IPs is not anything else.
OK, we will see who was right :P
You've seen the writing on the wall, my friend.
Already at 25
this topic is off-track. time to split it?
IoT is being designed around the availability of IPv6, and Cisco/Google are investing heavily. there will be trouble ahead if IPv6 doesn't happen.
Lol if what's happened to electric cars ends up happening to IPv6.
IPv4 and fossil fuels forever!
Yep and also the sheer value of IPv4 assets and some of the deals that are being done this side of the Atlantic. There's a lot of pennies to be made and until the goldrush finishes I really don't expect IPv6 to have a chance.
Its like the renewable energies, do you think petrol cars in 10 years or will be driving electric/hydrogen/LPG whatever cars? If you ask one of the eco-warrior types we'll all be driving around in zero emission, water powered cars, but reality 10 years from now the petrol engine will still be dominant.
And I agree somewhat, but as I said, the citizen's internet will probably not even be IP based at all.
True, but you forget how the crowd psychology works, now it is the IPv4 hoarding, tomorrow a few IT managers will think it will be trendy to have IPv6 and IPv4 will be considered so last decade. Once that happens, there is no turning back. And how to take the Boss's job if not convincing the company CEO that you have the necessary expertise for the "future of internet" while your boss says that is a long way off and no need to do anything for the next decade?
It is also true people do not like to invest in changing routers and all, but how many IPv4 only ones are still in production today and how often they must be changed anyway, regardless of IPv4/IPv6 saga? Suddenly in about 3 years all routers or almost all will have IPv6 and will only need switched ON, most IT specialists will know how to deal with it or at least one in the IT department will, there will be tutorials dor dummies on how to get it up in frontends and backends if needed, sure, the internal network will still be IPv4 on NAT only due to security issues, but the gateways will be able to route over IPv6 regardless.
There's no money in curing cancer
IPv6 was a kneejerk reaction to a bad situation.
Evidence shows that if something is interesting on the Internet/IP networks then its gets implemented pretty quickly. When video streaming started, the IP networks were not capable to deliver the required bandwidth and required latency, these days they are - why? Because there is $$$ in it.
IPv6 so far has been a white elephant and until there is a financial reason to invest into it then no network operator has an incentive to deploy it instead of IPv4.
IOT doesn't need to be IPv6 based, there are plenty of implementations using other protocols and then using network protocol conversion at the edge.
The financial reason will be $10/ip/month
I was surprised by the rise of diesel engined cars. I think you're right about petrol, but the growth of hybrid/electric will continue
No, in-building using one protocol then single IP out to the Internet. One of our directors has bet a lot of cash on IoT and he is not even considering IPv6 to be part of interface solution. Its like developing a 10G phone 5 years before anyone has a 10G network to use it on. Specs look great on paper, 1Gbps to the handset, 20 phone lines, full HD video conferencing at 30 fps (joke specs before anyone picks me up on it) but still got to connect to the same 3G/4G network today which is like a wet piece of string.
If IPv6 was ubiquitous today, then that would be a good idea, as its likely to be a LONG time before it is, then you have to build what you can take to market and cash in on now. So it needs to be IPv4 based.
Providers should give out /64 blocks too
You forget one thing i already detailed: If you have a demand, you can always rent, there will be tons of people happy to give you, because hoarding and not using wont make you money, many people will fail and will be bought, there are many ways IPs will return to the market, diluting the renting price, if your demand is not as high as you thought after a year, you will try to rent them out, and you will find out they are not as valuable as you thought, yearly renting price is still lower than monthly rent price for end-users, so, if you have a good business you make way more money than people dealing in IPs, unless you are a major broker with tens of millions turnover each year and your fee is moderate to high, still, not the initial hoarder will gain the most money.
I agree there is a profit to be made, but if you invest 5 Eur today on one IP and can rent for 1 Eur a year, it will be 5 years before you can recover your investment, let alone make any profit, and 20% return a year is normal in the industry today if you are doing things right, therefore, I invest 1 eur today and get 11 profit because I already have the demand for the IP and whn no longer needed i return it to you, you invest 5 Eur today and you do not know if you have a demand every full year for all your stash to cover your costs in 5 years and only then start making profit.
See the hard economy rules? You risk a lot, invest upfront, while I use the money to grow my real business with 0 risk and a much higher profit.
No, it is not worth to hoard UNLESS you get them free, so, if Crissic was just a front for QN to get the IPs, fine, if they paid anything significant like 4-5 per IP they made a very poor investment.
Beggers can't be choosers. I think simply having a v6 requirement would be a big step forward.
Francisco
Without question alternative energy cars will continue to increase in sales, but as an actual % of global vehicle sales, its going to take some serious government intervention to get people to consider changing.
Maybe another 1000% on petrol/diesel will help but assuming there will be no drastic intervention then fossil fuel cars will continue to dominate for a good long while yet as will IPv4.