On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, at 01:01, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <1474840690.4107784.736591409.28E807DF@webmail.messagingengine.com>, "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" writes:
I know, but for the "server guys" turning on IPv6 it's pretty low on priority list.
Are those server guys interested in stopping attacks without collateral damage? You can't say that a IPv4 address == 1 customer today. Any protection measures you put in place based on IPv4 addresses are likely to affect more than one customer.
To put in context, I live and work in France, where NO mobile operator provides IPv6, but they do use CGN. Wired-line operators (some, not all) barely start deploying CGNAT on some of the new customers. Pro/business access operators MUST provide IPv4 in order to be able to survive. Things will probably change, but this is the situation today. So "1 IPv4 = several customers" it's either mobile (with no alternative and separate abuse handling process) or negligible.
My customers are eyeballs. Residential ones have dual-stack by default, business - some have, some don't and some explicitly refuse (or ask for v6 to be disabled).
Lots of residentual customers don't have a unshared IPv4 address. The only reason you are seeing IPv4 from them is that the ISP has had to spend money working around the sheer lazyness of content providers in not providing IPv6.
Lots of residential customers still do here.
Is somewhere between 11-14% worldwide enough for you to invest the time to turn on IPv6 enough? It should be.
Since they (the 11-14% worldwide) do have IPv4 anyway, some consider it's not worth; at least not yet.
Actually almost all of the world does not have complete IPv4, they have a subset of IPv4. You have just got used to not having complete IPv4.
The issue with IPv6 deployment it's not as simple as some people suggest. It's not a technical problem either, but it's a big one.
In most cases it is just a matter of turning it on.
... and in some of those cases turning it on is subject to a "change request" that requires validation from some level of management that requests the answers to questions similar to following : "What do we gain from this ? What does it cost to turn on ? What does it cost to support the new feature ?". Giving acceptable answers to people that don't necessarily understand IPv6 (some of them having spent their entire life in "IPv4-only, behind NAT" environments) is not that obvious, and this is the core of the "non-technical problem". You probably don't have to deal a lot with this kind of people....