> Possible further benefit, reaching India and China who certainly aren't issuing IPv4.
This is important for servers, but not so much for consumers, IMHO. Sites in India and China are highly likely to be dual stacked, so v4 only users aren't likely to be missing any content at least currently. Although certainly missing access to v6 preferred peers. There's very few really v6only use cases out there yet, almost every consumer access network has some way to get to v4, there's too much v4 only content not to; even if the v4 access is much worse than v6, as it sometimes is.
Most mesh devices (not wifi), i.e. thread/openthread devices that use 6LowPAN are IPv6 only.
They're often based on microcontrollers with limited resources, so dont even support TCP, only UDP.
Many smart meters also use this same set of technologies (IPv6/6LowPAN/UDP/CoAP/etc) which is my own area of expertise, but the Google (and Amazon) devices also use these.
> people should come to terms to the fact that everybody is moving to cgnat and the world is not falling apart as they said it would.
As someone who's behind CG-NAT, I agree that the world is not falling apart. It is, however, very inconvenient.
The IPv4 Internet has more fluctuation in latency - I imagine it gets worse in periods when many more connections are having to go through the ISP's CG-NAT router, and/or when a lot more volume of data is going through that same bottleneck. It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal.
On top of that, my IPv4 traffic is bundled together with a cohort of cusotmers whose Internet behaviours I know nothing and have no control about. This affects my reputation on things like CAPTCHAs and other forms of access control. It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal.
I can't get into my own network from an IPv4-only external network without resorting to routing contortionism. It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal.
CG-NAT requires expensive and power-hungry equipment, which in turn means more maintenance, more complex infrastructures, more equipment failure and replacement and increased energy usage.
> get static IPv6 addresses instead of a dynamic one behind an ISP NAT.
Some UK ISPs give out /48s (cough Sky) but with dynamic allocation. So you reboot your router and every single IPv6 device on your network needs to re-address. Makes routing/port forwarding a PITA and nearly impossible using IPv6.
Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range, meaning an internal re number, unless you use NAT, in which case you may as well use ipv4 and nat.
If you have two ISPs (say a backup 5G) then you have to renumber every time the main goes down. If you want to load balance you’re screwed, unless of course you use nat.
Residential ISPs won’t allow you to bgp peer your own /48
> Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range, meaning an internal re number, unless you use NAT, in which case you may as well use ipv4 and nat.
Kind of: if you use IPv6's ULA (fc00/7 [1]), then you can have a NAT-like translation layer using NPTv6 [2]. The advantage of NTPv6 over NAT44 is that you get an entire prefix to play with instead of a single IP on your router's WAN interface.
If you wish to have multiple services (web, SSH, Minecraft), then with IPv4 hole punching you can only have one server on the default port and the second system with the same service needs to be on a different port. With IPv6/NPTv6 you can have each service on a different IPv6 address and live on its default port.
You also have the flexibility of either only allowing one particular port in for that service/IPv6 address, or just allowing all traffic in without any firewalling/filtering.
So NPTv6 is no worse than NAT44 in the simple cases, but also has extra functionality over it.
> Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range
I bet most people change ISPs with a frequency that's a fraction of the frequency they reboot their routers.
In any case, only a few devices in most households require static public IPs (only the ones you connect to from the outside directly). If you put those in DNS, all you need to do is change their AAAA records.
For internal comms, IPv6s in the link- or site-local ranges are better anyway.
I guess that's a good point, even if my ISP did have IP V6, I'd need to get a static from that too. Bet they'd want me to pay extra for that one on top of the V4 cost.
Huh? I'm only able to get a single /64 with Sky. If I enable PD then I get nothing. Perhaps this is the fault of the Unifi Dream Machine's poor IPv6 support... maybe I should take another look?
I thought the same with my ISP, but it turned out it was pfSense who didn't do the right thing or something. Switched to OpenWRT and I got a /56 right away.
It will take something absurdly massive like the iPhone to drop IPv4 to turn the tide. Look at how Apple's aggressive use of the iPhone has changed things. Right now it's their push for eSIM.
Possible further benefit, reaching India and China who certainly aren't issuing IPv4.
Hopefully the day comes when people can get static IPv6 addresses instead of a dynamic one behind an ISP NAT.