The benefits of deploying IPv6 only
Why Hacker News recommends it
Cited as real operator data that IPv6 is faster than IPv4 and that large networks are already going IPv6-only.
What it is
A NANOG 64 panel with speakers from Comcast, APNIC, T-Mobile and Facebook on deploying IPv6-only networks, including performance data showing IPv6 outperforming NAT-ed IPv4.
Recommended by 3 HN commenters across 2 different months, 2015 to 2016.
What Hacker News said
Recommends X-Istence · 2015-06 · on “National IPv6 launch day in Finland”
Comcast is going for a pure IPv6 core network, they are currently at 60% of their customers getting an IPv6 address of some sort (cable modem or even cable box). T-Mobile's network is IPv6 as well. Especially for customer devices that support 464XLAT: [LINK] There is a LOT of support for IPv6, and many companies like Facebook are finding that IPv6 actually offers better performance end to end for their users. Take a look at this NANOG presentation: [this video]
Recommends ay · 2015-06 · on “IPv4 Depletion”
Exactly. And as the home speeds reach 1Gbps to the home, there will not be enough CGN boxes that will be able to sustain that load, so one of the two options: 1) more stateless mechanisms will be used (lw4o6, MAP) - which do not give the entire IPv4 address to residential users => so even if the service has an IPv4 address, the clients might have to go through the hurdles to get to it. Service providers are planning to go IPv6-only, and content providers already note that IPv6 gives a double-digit performance increase compared to IPv4 [1] 2) The residential ISPs will debundle the IPv4 from the cost - given that a lot of the sites average consumer needs (google, facebook, youtube, netflix) ar
Recommends scurvy · 2015-07 · on “ARIN Activates IPv4 Unmet Requests Policy”
NATs do induce a fair amount of latency. It's not exaggerated. Watch Paul Saab from Facebook talk about how much better IPv6 performs at NANOG 64: [this video]
Cites X-Istence · 2015-06 · on “Comcast Automatically Enabling IPv6 in San Francisco”
An engineer at Comcast in this nanog video [1] claims they have 60% penetration in their own network for IPv6. Which is excellent news. [1]: [this video]
Cites ay · 2015-06 · on “IPv4 Depletion”
There will be no abrupt end. Just the price per IP will slowly grow, and the usefulness of this IP will slowly fade. There's no panic. The trick with IPv6 deployment is predicting two years in advance the moment will you need IPv6 "tomorrow" - because for a lot of orgs that's how long it takes. I'll repost a link from the recent NANOG meeting here about the folks seriously discussing their plans of going IPv6-only: [this video] By the way, if you're reading this from a smartphone in the US, try this link: [LINK] I thoroughly enjoyed the moment when one networking pro (who dealt with IPv6 20 years ago and not since) was telling me he won't have IPv6 till he retires, realized he had his on his LTE
Cites scurvy · 2015-07 · on “ARIN Activates IPv4 Unmet Requests Policy”
That's simply not true. Over 22% of US Internet consumers have IPv6 addresses. Your mobile phone probably has a (few) IPv6 addresses. From NANOG 64: [this video]
Cites ay · 2015-07 · on “ARIN Activates IPv4 Unmet Requests Policy”
In addition to other answers, here is some food for thought: Some operators are already working on turning IPv4 off in their networks: [this video]
Cites X-Istence · 2016-01 · on “IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10% deployment”
This is contrarian to real world testing: [LINK] [this video] Facebook and many other companies are finding that IPv6 is faster, personally at home I have found that disabling IPv4 allows me to more quickly buffer and stream Netflix, and about 30 - 40% of my traffic is IPv6. My Apple TV is the last hold-out that still seems to use IPv4 over IPv6 for Netflix.