IPv6 deployment for hosting and developers: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:45, 10 September 2020

Talk on the implications of deploying IPv6 for hosting platforms and developers.

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.
IPv4 works. The only problem is a lack of addresses, but you can hack around that, and it doesn't matter to incumbents.

'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.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * 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.
+* IPv4 works. The only problem is a lack of addresses, but you can hack around that, and it doesn't matter to incumbents.
 == Competition concerns ==