IPv6 deployment for hosting and developers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* IPv6 deployment can and does break things. | * IPv6 deployment can and does break things. | ||
* Benefits are vague and in future. | * Benefits are vague and in future. | ||
* IPv6 is like | * IPv6 is like PHP 7 - yes you should do it but there's limited immediate quantifiable benefit to the customer. | ||
== Competition concerns == | == Competition concerns == | ||
Revision as of 08:44, 10 September 2020
Talk on the implications of deploying IPv6 for hosting platforms and developers.
Rough notes
- Stats on incoming traffic from hosting providers
- Stats on outgoing traffic from ISPs(?)
- Percentage of sites running IPv6
- Percentage of other services running IPv6
Problems
- Why is IPv6 deployment so slow?
- Adding AAAA records 'breaks' SSH.
- Mail over IPv6 without SPF and DKIM stops delivery to large mail providers (e.g. Google).
- If multiple protocols are available, which should be preferred? Linux seems to go for IPv6 first, but any which prefer IPv4 will never see the v6 service.
- What is the benefit for hosting platform customers?
- IPv6 deployment can and does break things.
- Benefits are vague and in future.
- IPv6 is like PHP 7 - yes you should do it but there's limited immediate quantifiable benefit to the customer.
Competition concerns
- 'Buy IPv4 addresses, they're not making them anymore'
- RIPE 733: "The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /24.", "The sum of all allocations made to a single LIR by the RIPE NCC is limited to a maximum of 256 IPv4 addresses (a single /24). If this allocation limit has been reached or exceeded, an LIR cannot request an IPv4 allocation under this policy."
- Who regulates RIPE et al? They have power to allocate a scarce and valuable resource.