What killed IPv6 as a mainstream protocol?

[linuxfan66]

What killed IPv6 as a mainstream protocol?

It seems to me to be apathy resulting from existing systems not originally built for it.(and a lack of appropriate consumer hardware for years)

[Guest]

The same reasons the cinema standard is 24fps. Adoption refusal... 

[Altecice]

Nothing killed it, its still required and is being roled out VERY slowly. But usual humans we leave it until we really REALLY need it (aka no IPV4 left) and then we will rush to upgrade legacy devices to IPV6.

[AlwaysFSX]

The same reasons the cinema standard is 24fps. Adoption refusal... 

It's not adoption refusal, just adoption laziness. There's really no choice other than to accept IPv6, just that adoption is going slow as balls.

[You_are_a_cunt]

It's not dead. It's propagating slowly due to how it works differently from IPv4

ISPs need to add compatibility first, which is a multi-billion dollar task

[minibois]

It wa never mainstream, they never changed

[linuxfan66]

Nothing killed it, its still required and is being roled out VERY slowly. But usual humans we leave it until we really REALLY need it (aka no IPV4 left) and then we will rush to upgrade legacy devices to IPV6.

Which is why I said mainstream and not enterprise....

[givingtnt]

The same reasons the cinema standard is 24fps. Adoption refusal... 

no its just because its the smallest ammount of frames needed to make something looks smooth.  wich ends up with less data required for movie making. wich means easier workflow .......

[linuxfan66]

no its just because its the smallest ammount of frames needed to make something looks smooth. wich ends up with less data required for movie making. wich means easier workflow .......

3d and the hobbit?

[FuzzyYellow]

It certainly isn't dead, but it's just no being rolled out rapidly because there is a cost to change over from IPv4. we have pretty much run out of IPv4 addresses, so IPv6 is going to start to become more utilizes as time goes on.

[givingtnt]

3d and the hobbit?

for normal movies

[Guest]

IPv4 ubiquity.

[SpaceNugget]

nothing killed it because it isn't dead. its just that why take out the 10 passenger van instead of the motorcycle when you only have one person.

 

there are more possible addresses in ipv6 so as we run out of ipv4 addresses ( happening now ) they will be forced to make the switch to ipv6

[Guest]

no its just because its the smallest ammount of frames needed to make something looks smooth.  wich ends up with less data required for movie making. wich means easier workflow .......

Film making classes at the moment on brainwashing the idea into student head that 24fps is somehow superior to higher values and closer to real life. 

[Hans Christian | Teri]

What makes you think it's dead? It's just not fully rolled out yet. Stuff like this takes a long time.

[linuxfan66]

What makes you think it's dead? It's just not fully rolled out yet. Stuff like this takes a long time.

I was referring to mainstream consumer use and I should point it would be perfect for mobile data networks because you wouldn't need a proxy as every single individual device could have its own ip without risking IPv4 stocks

[InVis]

No consumers need it - ipv4 is fine for up to 16777214 hosts for class a, 65534 hosts for class b and 254 hosts for class c

[givingtnt]

Film making classes at the moment on brainwashing the idea into student head that 24fps is somehow superior to higher values and closer to real life. 

idk about now. but I do know that its based on an old problem of film makers going at different framerates, with problems since the audio and film were not in sync. then they put this standart so that everyone would be on the same page. all the time.

[InVis]

I was referring to mainstream consumer use and I should point it would be perfect for mobile data networks because you wouldn't need a proxy as every single individual device could have its own ip without risking IPv4 stocks

 

You dont need it for that either

You can just use NAT and a statefull firewall, then 1 WAN ip becomes 65000-ish usable ports, which (depending on settings) could translate to 1300 users, if they all get 50 sesseions each (which almost no phones or mobile broadband use).

[linuxfan66]

You dont need it for that either

You can just use NAT and a statefull firewall, then 1 WAN ip becomes 65000-ish usable ports, which (depending on settings) could translate to 1300 users, if they all get 50 sesseions each (which almost no phones or mobile broadband use).

Nat violates the webs end to end connection design.... And that's why they are trying to wipe it out.

I do think nat has a place in v6 but not on the Carrier network just private networks entering the wan.(I think a proper firewall is a better option though)

[InVis]

Nat violates the webs end to end connection design.... And that's why they are trying to wipe it out.

I do think nat has a place in v6 but not on the Carrier network just private networks entering the wan.(I think a proper firewall is a better option though)

 

I know the implications if you want to be able to access the device from both ends, but really, noone else but NSA should be interested in that.

NAT and firewalls give an extra layer of protection.

 

Yes, some carriers usses NAT.

[Guest]

idk about now. but I do know that its based on an old problem of film makers going at different framerates, with problems since the audio and film were not in sync. then they put this standart so that everyone would be on the same page. all the time.

If I recall really old film was at 16fps . then to 24. Modern theater technology can easily transition to 48, I just blame the film industry tards. 

[Hans Christian | Teri]

I was referring to mainstream consumer use and I should point it would be perfect for mobile data networks because you wouldn't need a proxy as every single individual device could have its own ip without risking IPv4 stocks

 

My point still stands. It's not dead, it's just not fully implemented.

[dzonidev]

Half of the planet is still using phone lines and fiber ain't dead. From what I know the core of the internet is already IPv6, so it's ISPs who are slacking.

 

Don't forget that there is an 80% chance that your ISP provided modem is IPv4 only. Imagine now ISPs having to replace say 100k modems in 3 months. How much money would that cost them?

[roastduck]

Half of the planet is still using phone lines and fiber ain't dead. From what I know the core of the internet is already IPv6, so it's ISPs who are slacking.

 

Don't forget that there is an 80% chance that your ISP provided modem is IPv4 only. Imagine now ISPs having to replace say 100k modems in 3 months. How much money would that cost them?

And more importantly, how much of that cost would be offloaded onto customers who are probably already paying too much