IPv6 deployment for hosting and developers: Difference between revisions

From Rixort Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 7: Line 7:
* Percentage of sites running IPv6
* Percentage of sites running IPv6
* Percentage of other services running IPv6
* Percentage of other services running IPv6
* Example: Russell Group universities with AAAA for their main website.


== Problems ==
== Problems ==

Revision as of 08:46, 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
  • Example: Russell Group universities with AAAA for their main website.

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.
  • 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

  • '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.