IPV6 any time soon?

[#1]

I find it interesting to read the number of claimed benefits of IPv6 written as "should" not "will". In other words the claims are not substantiated, even though IPv6 is widely deployed elsewhere, from where experience ought to be able to make such claims more affirmative.

What ever messaging protocol is utilised, the constraining factor remains the speed at which bits can be transmitted over the wires.  IPv6 packets with their larger addressing sizes are not going to travel any faster than IPv4 messages which have smaller addresses.

Other than it is different, more modern (which does not automatically imply better), avoids NAT as we know it and every device can have its own address and be addressed directly (which can be argued to be a security risk) I've yet to see a slam dunk argument of why IPv6 is intrinsically better as opposed to just being different.

[#2]

Very quick answer research if you wish.
To me this thread is way old now and kind of as rusty as PN.
One straight answer advantage  with IPV6 = Gamer's/ PC / Consoles etc.
Do the research if you wish, as I done that years ago and wont be shouting another follow up!
All best 

[#3]

I wonder if some of the people asking why IPv6 are also people unhappy about Plusnet using an IPv4 addresses previously allocated to the USA?

Perhaps they should forget IPv6 forever, ditch the 142.*.*.* range and implement CG-NAT - problem solved!

Yeah right!

[#4]

Jelv,

We both know that IPv6 does not solve the geolocation data errors. Further some of the impacted websites are not IPv6 enabled.

Aside from increasing the number of available addresses some the claimed benefits seem short on substantiation.

For the vast bulk of users IPv6 seems to offer little (if any benefit). Indeed some of the claimed benefits pass message processing over heads to the end devices away from the routers. Arguably that could slow down already challenged low spec PCs.

[#5]

Serious geo location errors arise when an IP is reallocated from one country to another - it is the changes that cause the issue. Changes are being made because IPv4 address have run out.

With IPv6 why would IP ranges need to be reallocated?

[#6]

---

@Townman wrote:

every device can have its own address and be addressed directly

---

I thought that is the reason why IPv6 is intrinsically better - more addresses!

What next - if you disregard FTTC's higher bandwidth, it's not much better than ADSL?!

[#7]

Also IPv4 geo location doesn't work properly - it is a fudge. It has never come anywhere close to locating me correctly either on my Plusnet 80.*.*.* fixed IP or on my AAISP fixed IP.

[#8]

---

@Townman wrote:

IPv6 packets with their larger addressing sizes are not going to travel any faster than IPv4 messages

Did anyone ever claim IPV6 is faster?

every device can have its own address and be addressed directly (which can be argued to be a security risk)

That argument usually comes from those who think a NAT router is a firewall.
The simplest possible firewall (without NAT) blocks all incoming connections by default. See Why NAT has nothing to do with security Actually the workarounds needed to get round NAT problems make NAT routers potentially les secure (VOIP, for example)

But anyway, even if you think IPV6 is worse than IPV4, it's still a necessary evil because we WILL run out of IPV4 addresses.

[#9]

@anahata,

A warm welcome to the forums - I see that you're a recent joiner here.

The link in post #41 making claims of the benefits of IPv6 over IPv4 states...

By using IPv6 on your Xbox One, you should have less latency when playing multiplayer games, any data that you do transmit over the internet should be safer and more private, and in general any connections made by the Xbox One — either to remote servers, or peer-to-peer — should be faster and more responsive.

That reads like a claim that its faster ... or should be ... as I suggested given how long its been around, the claim ought to be verifiable irrefutably, but it seems not.

I did not seek to imply that a NAT is a firewall, rather that generally NAT keeps private network addresses (and what's in there) ... err private.  With IPv6 every device essentially has a public IP address so such 'privacy' is no longer exactly private.

I did not suggest that IPv6 is worse than IPv4 - I'm of the opinion that it is simply technically different, not yet universally essential, many of the headline claims are nefarious and that the majority of ordinary users will derive little direct benefit.

That is not to say that its implementation here is anything but desirable but its not quite the catastrophe some would suggest.  Oh we and our first world problems!

[#10]

---

@jelv wrote:

With IPv6 why would IP ranges need to be reallocated?

---

There is scope within the current way that the IP range allocation is recorded / managed to allow the data to be mis-interpreted.

E.g.  The 'Owner' of a large block of addresses may sub allocate parts of the block to subsidiary organisations within the company.  There is capability within the register to record the 'Current Users' of each of these sub-allocated blocks.  If the geolocation data provider is a bit lax with its information it may only supply the 'Owner' information about the large block of addresses and not that of the sub allocated address ranges.

Perfectly logical that a large International group may change the address range allocated to various companies (possibly on different continents) from time to time and correctly update the ARIN or RIPE database records.  Now if any part of the geolocation data provision path fails to update or misinterprets the source .................................>

NOTE:  The above is a substantial precis of information here  Check out this paper for an interesting read on Geolocation in particular the section on IPv6.

Any errors in the precis are mine!

[#11]

So the GIGO concept still applies to IPv6 

[#12]

---

@Townman wrote:

@anahata,

A warm welcome to the forums - I see that you're a recent joiner here.

Thank you. Actually I've been a forum member for years but haven't posted anything for a very long time.

I did not seek to imply that a NAT is a firewall, rather that generally NAT keeps private network addresses (and what's in there) ... err private.  With IPv6 every device essentially has a public IP address so such 'privacy' is no longer exactly private.

In a public address range, yes, but not known unless you choose to make it so, hard to guess, and inaccessible even if known, unless you allow it in your router.