> many people wonder why there is still a market for IPv4
This is so tone deaf.
Put it this way, if Verizon, Google, and Facebook weren’t the champions for IPV6 for rolling it out, I’d be on board.
First and foremost: ipv6 is unnecessary for the end user, ipv4 provides the default assumption that a casual anonymizing NAT is in use.
And we can be real: SRV records, SNI, NAT work just fine and solved all the problems IPV6 went to solve _from the consumer perspective _.
I know this comment will be incredibly unpopular on HN, but the points need to be addressed. Your ISP is not your friend and neither are these other companies that sell your information without your explicit consent.
It's sort of tolerable if it happens on your home router which is under your control, but its absolutely a pain in the backside if it's done on the ISP level (CGNAT) and you want to self-host anything from your home network, like multiplayer mode in some games, or whatever…
Just curious, how does ipv6 solve multiplayer mode? Even with ipv6, you absolutely need to drop inbound traffic from the internet to devices on your LAN... am I not understanding something with ipv6?
This is a very simplistic view. IPv6 doesn't meaningfully improve or hinder your anonymity compared to IPv4 behind NAT. Facebook, Google will in the common case obtain way better fingerprint by using many techniques together. Your ISP has a contract with your address on it and is usually required by law to keep records. It will know what happens independent of IPv4 or IPv6 - you will still get the blame and privacy extensions have a similar effect here like NAT.
If everybody was just a consumer all the time, we would have a very different (worse) society overall. There is a reason a subset of technical people do want IPv6 even if it means way more work for them.
ISPs have been deployed for years without IPv4 or bad IPv4 (see this thread). And even not counting those ISPs there are countless more than would completely fall over if the major players stop announcing IPv6.
They just don't have the CGNAT capacity to run the internet without IPv6.
Strictly from the consumer perspective this means buggier, slower, and more expensive internet. Consumers don't care about bits, but their dollars he to buy the CGNAT and other crap.
And it'll only get more and more expensive (for the customers).
This is so tone deaf.
Put it this way, if Verizon, Google, and Facebook weren’t the champions for IPV6 for rolling it out, I’d be on board.
First and foremost: ipv6 is unnecessary for the end user, ipv4 provides the default assumption that a casual anonymizing NAT is in use.
And we can be real: SRV records, SNI, NAT work just fine and solved all the problems IPV6 went to solve _from the consumer perspective _.
I know this comment will be incredibly unpopular on HN, but the points need to be addressed. Your ISP is not your friend and neither are these other companies that sell your information without your explicit consent.