What's keeping your network from IPv6?

[thebros35]

I was wondering this today, why aren't people on IPv6? This applies to home, to work, to school, to any network you can think of. My home isn't on IPv6 because I'm a lazy bastard. Everything supports IPv6, the only thing I haven't tested is my Cisco 2960-S I bought off of eBay. Even my ISP supports IPv6! I'm just a lazy prick so I turned off IPv6 from my DHCP server so now everything is IPv4 at home. What are your reasons?

[Leonard]

The only thing keep our network from IPv6 is the frigging unchecked ISPs, those SOBs do what they want when they want and it doesn't seem to be stopping any time soon. My ISP can do IPv6 but in stead they decide to do 6in4 on the WAN and funnel us through it. In your case you are just a lazy son of a....get that IPv6 going!!!...so we can live vicariously through you.

[LienusLateTips]

1. We're lazy

2. IPv4 numbers are easier to remember

3. MY FRICKIN ISP (Stupid Shaw) WONT SUPPORT v6!

[samcool55]

I have an IPv4 and IPv6 address from my ISP (turns out a hybrid ip is a thing O_o?) but i use IPv4 internally, there's no need to individually connect every device in my house to the internet. Nothing i use today breaks when using NAT so yea...

[TechSquidTV]

I can't image why I'd need IPv4 on my local network.

[brwainer]

Verizon does not offer IPv6 addresses to any wired customer, DSL or FiOS. I have a business connection with 5 static IPv4 addresses, and I can't get a single IPv6 address routed to me. For now I'm using tunnelbroker.com for IPv6, but since that's a tunnel (sort of similar to a proxy except it doesn't hide your IP) everything that uses IPv6 goes much slower.

 

On the local network I prefer not to use IPv6, and only have IPv6 in place so that if (when) something comes along that is only reachable by IPv6, I will be ready.

[zMeul]

44 minutes ago, thebros35 said:

Everything supports IPv6

well, not really

there are a lot of domains who haven't switched to IPv6

 

I am on IPv6 for, me thinks, ~2y

[Mira Yurizaki]

I don't really see the need for home networks to have IPv6. If the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet is too much for you, either you have a drone swarm in your house or you really need to let go of your devices.

[Lurick]

24 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I don't really see the need for home networks to have IPv6. If the 192.168.0.0/16 subnet is too much for you, either you have a drone swarm in your house or you really need to let go of your devices.

I have IPv6 in my house, using a /56 subnetted up into /64s

It's mostly a "because I can" scenario though, I don't NEED it technically but meh.

It's like running OSPF and OSPFv3, I don't NEED to run them but why not, lol.

[tt2468]

Because ipv6 is an alien technology to 80% of ISPs. It's no use routing IPv6 traffic through an IPv4 WAN.

[kirashi]

13 hours ago, thebros35 said:

I was wondering this today, why aren't people on IPv6? This applies to home, to work, to school, to any network you can think of. My home isn't on IPv6 because I'm a lazy bastard. Everything supports IPv6, the only thing I haven't tested is my Cisco 2960-S I bought off of eBay. Even my ISP supports IPv6! I'm just a lazy prick so I turned off IPv6 from my DHCP server so now everything is IPv4 at home. What are your reasons?

My current ISP doesn't support IPv6 to the home. 'Nuff said. I've even got a Netgear R7000 running TomatoWRT capable of using both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time through two WAN ports, and 2 IP's provisioned for such a purpose, but nope. Stuck with 2 IPv4 addresses.

 

They are a lot easier to remember though, so that's a bonus.

[Guest]

• ISP support - most ISP's in Aus aren't doing it yet
• Skills within technicians and 'contact points' with clients - a lot of L1 helpdesk within clients of ours don't understand IPv6 entirely. Even I'm not across all of it - having said that I'm moving away from being a networking guy to being an infrastructure guy so there is that resistance to learn somewhat from me?
• Security of IPv6 - not everything needs to be publicly addressable
• Cost - why spend hundreds of hours changing if it ain't broke? I'm fine with IPv6 WAN addressing however why change the LAN if it works fine?

[dalekphalm]

On 2017-5-9 at 5:55 AM, Windspeed36 said:

• ISP support - most ISP's in Aus aren't doing it yet
• Skills within technicians and 'contact points' with clients - a lot of L1 helpdesk within clients of ours don't understand IPv6 entirely. Even I'm not across all of it - having said that I'm moving away from being a networking guy to being an infrastructure guy so there is that resistance to learn somewhat from me?
• Security of IPv6 - not everything needs to be publicly addressable
• Cost - why spend hundreds of hours changing if it ain't broke? I'm fine with IPv6 WAN addressing however why change the LAN if it works fine?

I'm of the mind that for WAN addresses? Sure IPv6 it up. but for LAN addresses, IPv6 needlessly complicates a system where, for example, remembering and assigning static IP Addresses is dead easy.

 

I'm not exactly sure how efficient a IP6 to IP4 NAT is, but assuming it's near the same as regular IP4 NAT, I would be perfectly happy with that system.

 

I 100% agree with not wanting all my LAN devices to have a public IP6 address - is there a proper way to do IP6 WAN to IP6 LAN NAT?

[Mira Yurizaki]

20 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm of the mind that for WAN addresses? Sure IPv6 it up. but for LAN addresses, IPv6 needlessly complicates a system where, for example, remembering and assigning static IP Addresses is dead easy.

I was thinking about this, but there are provisions to make addresses easier to remember. You can omit leading zeros and if there are groups of all zeroes, those can be omitted entirely (though only the first instance). For example, ::1 is a perfectly valid IPv6 address to use for loopback testing. Using the private address block in IPv6, FC00::/7, if I limited my subnet to something like the 192.168.0.0/16 private address block, I only need to remember something like FC00::C0A8:012A. And if you were a playful person, you'd make words. So my network address could be FC00::DEAD:BEEF:0:0

 

However, considering I have no need for IPv6, I don't see a point in changing over.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I was thinking about this, but there are provisions to make addresses easier to remember. You can omit leading zeros and if there are groups of all zeroes, those can be omitted entirely (though only the first instance). For example, ::1 is a perfectly valid IPv6 address to use for loopback testing. Using the private address block in IPv6, FC00::/7, if I limited my subnet to something like the 192.168.0.0/16 private address block, I only need to remember something like FC00::C0A8:012A. And if you were a playful person, you'd make words. So my network address could be FC00::DEAD:BEEF:0:0

 

However, considering I have no need for IPv6, I don't see a point in changing over.

Yeah I don't know about you, but FC00::/7 is not easy to remember , let alone FC00::C0A8:012A... hell no I'm never going to remember that.