I have used these on my network and office to move to IPv6-only for Android.
What about lack of DHCPv6 prevents you from using IPv6 on Android?
Works great for me.
Try connecting to your IPv6-only service on Hotel WiFi -- you usually can't.
It's unfortunate, but IPv6 doesn't really solve any problems for a home user. And I say this as someone that has deployed IPv6 at home before.
CG-NAT and strict NAT in general. Newer ISPs often force users onto CG-NAT, and my consoles have had numerous issues with NAT in general over the years. ISP routers also often make fixing this an opaque or impossible problem for the user.
I don’t think IPv6 is the best thing ever, but I do think it solves the problems IPv4 did along with some annoying issues IPv4 struggled with.
IPv6 essentially enables "universal internet IDs" for every device, which could streamline a lot of things, but enable a lot of weird surveillance/power balance issues that the cruft of IPv4 is actually incidentally helping guard against.
Again, I'm old enough to remember when e.g. the ISPs were going to try to charge per device in each household.
I don't really see that coming again and if it does you can just do NAT66 just like you can do NAT4.
But, network effects.
Can someone explain why it's ambiguous?
On the subject, IPv6 is one of the strangest inventions on the internet. Its utility and practically are obvious no matter how you look at it except... just one thing.
Network-related things are generally easy to remember and then type from memory: IPv4, domain names, standard port numbers. Back in the day it was the phone numbers, again, easy to remember and dial when you need it. IPv6 is just too long and requires copy/paste all the time. This is the only real reason in my opinion, why IPv6 is doomed to be second-grade citizen for (probably) a few more decades.
Because you don’t know how many zeroes are on each side around the 0001 in the middle.
It can be 2000:0000:1:0000:0000:0000:0000:1 or 2000:0000:0000:0000:0000:1:0000:1 etc.
IPv4 also has a similar, though rarely documented or utilized, shortcut system. Try `ping 1.1` for example. It expands to 1.0.0.1.
2000::1::1 could be 2000:0000:0000:0000:0001:0000:0000:001, or 2000:00000000:0001:0000:0000:0000:001
There's ambiguity on where to fill in the five groups of 0000 in the second case.
Edit: Whoops. Didn't read what the above post was in response to. My bad.
I do get that but I also get 'There are so many I could have all I wanted ... or I could if any of our fiber ISPs would support it, that is'
IPv6 was designed by political process. Go around the room to each engineer and solve for their pet peeve to in turn rally enough support to move the proposal forward. As a bunch of computer people realized how hard politics were they swore never to do it again and made the address size so laughably large that it was "solved" once and for all.
I firmly believe that if they had adopted any other strategy where addresses could be meaningfully understood and worked with by the least skilled network operators, we would have had "IPv6" adoption 10 years ago.
My personal preference would have been to open up class E space (240-255.*) and claw back the 6 /8s Amazon is hoarding, be smarter about allocations going forward, and make fees logarithmic based on the number of addresses you hold.
IPv4 was not designed as such, but as an academic exercise. It was an experiment. An experiment that "escape the lab". This is per Vint Cerf:
* https://www.pcmag.com/news/north-america-exhausts-ipv4-addre...
And if you think there wasn't politics in iPv4 you're dead wrong:
* https://spectrum.ieee.org/vint-cerf-mistakes
> IPv6 was designed by political process.
Only if by "political process" you mean a bunch of people got together (physically and virtually) and debated the options and thought what they thought was best. The criteria for choosing IPng were documented:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726
There were a number of proposals, and three finalists, with SIPP being chosen:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752
> I firmly believe that if they had adopted any other strategy where addresses could be meaningfully understood and worked with by the least skilled network operators, we would have had "IPv6" adoption 10 years ago.
The primary reason for IPng was >32 bits of address space. The only way to make them shorter is to have fewer bits, which completely defeats the purpose of the endeavour.
There was no way to move from 32-bits to >32-bits without every network stack of every device element (host, gateway, firewall, application, etc) getting new code. Anything that changed the type and size of sockaddr (plus things like new DNS resource record types: A is 32-bit only) would require new code.
I was reminded of this 2d ago; I was testing one IPv6 WAN from another. DDNS had failed so I didn't have my usual crutch to lean on.
I guess it could be possible to implement sort of mnemonic phrases for addresses, à la bip-39, but it would be just trading one kind of pain for another.
The length of the addresses and the clunky nature of their ASCII representation is absolutely the #1 reason the IPv6 has taken this long. User experience is the most powerful force affecting large scale adoption, and IPv6 has poor UX.
I think the UX is partly fixable by creating less horrible ASCII representation, but this would take a lot of coordination that was hard even back then and is virtually impossible now. If someone told me in 500 years we're still running dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 absolutely unchanged, I'd believe it.
Except if you're using a mobile phone, in which case many telcos hand out only IPv6 addresses to handsets. 2018 NANOG presentation "T-Mobile's journey to IPv6":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA
From 2014, "Case Study: T-Mobile US Goes IPv6-only Using 464XLAT":
* https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-...
But who cares about mobile phones, right? They're only second-grade devices.
I'm used to cablemodems with static ipv4 for months basically until mac changes
Enable IPv6 on a TP-Link Omada router (ER7212PC) and all internal services are exposed to the outside world as there is no default IPv6 deny-all rule and no IPv6 firewall. I get why some people are nervous.
A router routing traffic makes people nervous? Isn't that what it's supposed to do? I'd be annoyed if my router did not pass traffic.
Now, if the ER7212PC was a firewall that would be something else.
(And no, I'm not being pedantic: routers should pass traffic unless told otherwise, firewalls should block traffic unless told otherwise. The purposes of the two device classes are different, they just happen to both deal with Layer 3 protocol data units.)
- My local ISP (US Internet, soon to be part of T-Mobile Fiber) hasn't enabled it, even though the CEO has said on Reddit for years that it's a priority. Now that they've been acquired who knows if it'll ever happen.
- Linode allows transferring v4 addresses between machines, so if I need to rebuild something I can do so without involving my client who usually has control over DNS. They do not support moving v6 addresses, which means that the only sites I have control over that support v6 are the ones that I control DNS.
Making IPv6 a thing seems like it would be super easy if a couple hours could be spent solving a bunch of dumb lazy problems.
Being a priority doesn't mean it's high priority. It could be a priority, but the lowest ranked one, so other stuff always comes first. :P
T-Mobile wireless US is pretty invested on IPv6, so if they take over the network, they may well push it.
Your v6 subnet prefix is no different than whatever WAN-side v4 your NAT had. "Accidental semi-randomization" of the WAN side IP is not something one could reliably count on. Many ISPs just hand over a static-like IP, that is, even when it's supposed to be random the pool of IPs is so constrained that it's usually the same simply through the IP lease surviving power cycling. And that was before CGNAT.
If your concern is being identifiable through your IP then counting on whatever v4 artifact is the wrong move. Use a VPN with randomised exit nodes.
As far as I know, the majority of websites (about 70%) do not support IPv6.
Most of the figures I see show 60-70% of the top 100 sites do support it. But maybe that does not reflect your usage.
Why do you need it? Maybe you don’t right now since ipv6 only sites are niche. The most tangible advantage I’ve seen is avoiding CGNAT. Gamers in particular don’t like that because it introduces latency. Services like Xbox live definitely do support ipv6 for this reason.
[1] https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-05/20/c_1749446498560205.htm
It was a painful experience of trying to work out if I had misconfigured it, if it was something to do with my opensource router software or if it was my ISP or the end services. I didn't get to the end of working this out and reporting issues and I just gave up. Due to the intermittent nature of the issues I was facing I never managed to get a report of issues my ISP would accept.
So I'll give it some time and give it a try after a year and see if things have improved, but it was definitely not ready for prime time.
This has worked for me well for a couple years. I do use a VLAN to keep the IPv6-only network separate (homelab) from video streamers in the household.
In my pf.conf:
# IPv6 tunnel
block in log on $tun6_if all
block in quick on $tun6_if inet6 from fd00::/8 to any
antispoof quick for $tun6_if
# allowed icmp6
pass in quick log on $tun6_if inet6 proto icmp6 icmp6-type {
unreach, toobig, timex, paramprob, echoreq
}
# MSS clamping 60 bytes less than HE 1480
# 20 byte IPv4 tcp header + 40 byte IPv6 ip header
match on $tun6_if all scrub (random-id max-mss 1420)
# DNS64/NAT64
module-config: "dns64 validator iterator"
dns64-prefix: 64:ff9b::/96
In my direct experience, in the USA, at least Spectrum, AT&T, and Xfinity (Comcast) still run IPv4, of course, but they also have IPv6 working and on by default on their home internet offerings.
All mainstream computer and mobile OSes support it by default and will prefer to connect with it over IPv4.
‘Everyone’ in many areas is using it. For many of us, our parents are using Facebook and watching Netflix over it. Over 50% of Google’s American traffic is over it. It just works.
In theory this makes sense, but in practice my personal experience is that not a single wireline ISP I've ever seen deploy CG-NAT offered IPv6 service at all, nor did any of them indicate any intent or even interest when asked about it.
The mobile providers on the other hand have almost entirely gone IPv6-first, using 6>4 transition methods as the default form of v4 access which I fully support.
4>4 CG-NAT should never have existed and providers who deploy it without offering fully functional v6 should be shamed.
glitchc•1h ago
- How to ensure there are no collisions in address space? Translates to, how to pick safe addresses, is there a system?
- How do I route from an external network resource to an internal network resource? Translates to, can you provide syntax on how to connect to an smb share? Set up a web service that works without WireGuard or equivalent?
- How does one segment networks, configure a vlan, set up a firewall?
candiddevmike•1h ago
- Use global/public addresses on all your devices (using something like prefix delegation) or use NAT.
- Same as IPv4. Prefix delegation will let your ISP assign you multiple networks, and then most routers will break these up into /64 networks for each of your VLANs.
Latty•1h ago
- Open holes through firewalls, point DNS at the address, and it should just work, the joys of actually having public addresses.
- Same way as with IPv4 mostly. The only real difference is because SLAAC assumes a /64 you probably want your networks to be at least that big.
oezi•8m ago
But come on! It is a legitimate question, do you just scramble keys when picking an address?
> the joys of actually having public addresses.
If your ISP gives you a static IPv6. Unfortunately in Germany none of the ISP for private users does (last I checked).