In reply to a post by jchamier:

The owner of the AWS account that doesn't pay for v4 is the one whom will lose out. Nobody else.

We all lose out as the increasing expense of servicing Ipv4 will be passed to consumers. A "tiny amount" for one Ipv4 address, but over $2bn across AWS users alone.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

[IPv6] ... enables some applications like gaming and server hosting which work better when not behind NAT.

But if you don't do any of these things, you won't notice any difference.

Not sure that's quite right.. I'm stuck with an IPv4-only altnet behind CGNAT, and I can't run things like TBB BQM. I could get a static v4 address for a few extra quid a month, but I don't need it for much else, and TBB support IPv6. I've tried to negotiate a dynamic v4 address and use DDNS, but my ISP won't do it.

Incidentally, I noticed recently that DNS AAAA requests for bbc.co.uk are now returning an address, rather than NODATA. A sign of things to come, maybe?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

We all lose out as the increasing expense of servicing Ipv4 will be passed to consumers. A "tiny amount" for one Ipv4 address, but over $2bn across AWS users alone.

AWS is a cash generator for Amazon; assuming they already have the v4 assignment this is pure profit for them. Those whom are impacted financially should plan to move, unless locked in by using "native services" that aren't available anywhere else.

And people wonder why this is happening:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/5/23904375/uk-cma-m...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/microsof...

In reply to a post by Thaumaturge:

Incidentally, I noticed recently that DNS AAAA requests for bbc.co.uk are now returning an address, rather than NODATA. A sign of things to come, maybe?

bbc.co.uk has always returned A and AAAA but www.bbc.co.uk where all the services are only has an A record.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

AWS is a cash generator for Amazon; assuming they already have the v4 assignment this is pure profit for them. Those whom are impacted financially should plan to move, unless locked in by using "native services" that aren't available anywhere else.

AWS was in fact the last of the three largest cloud service providers to charge for IPv4, Azure and Google have been doing it for some time.

Why? Due to poor IPv6 adoption, demand for IPv4 addresses is not slowing, and they cost in the region of $50 per address to acquire. Whether or not the charge is itemised by service providers, it's there, it costs business, and by extension, us.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Why? Due to poor IPv6 adoption, demand for IPv4 addresses is not slowing, and they cost in the region of $50 per address to acquire. Whether or not the charge is itemised by service providers, it's there, it costs business, and by extension, us.

Ok if they've run out of their own allocation, then buying more is expensive as you have to convince someone else to sell (e.g. whats being discussed in the Zen forum).

But the choice is the customer to use these cloud hyperscalers, they do have competitors.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

But the choice is the customer to use these cloud hyperscalers, they do have competitors.

If people move away from hyperscalers to competitors, those competitors will have to acquire more IPv4 addresses to service those new customers, and they will have to pass those costs on. There is no "win" here that does not involve IPv6 adoption.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If people move away from hyperscalers to competitors, those competitors will have to acquire more IPv4 addresses to service those new customers, and they will have to pass those costs on. There is no "win" here that does not involve IPv6 adoption.

Or fronting with a CDN, as too many ISPs around the world have no v6 plans
I know plenty of corporates whom only have v4 exit from their network.

Edited by jchamier (Sun 18-Feb-24 12:39:21)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Or fronting with a CDN, as too many ISPs around the world have no v6 plans

I believe it would have been appropriate for Ofcom to have mandated IPv6 as a condition to operate as an ISP. Small ISPs like AAISP did it literally decades ago, large ISPs like BT and Sky managing it 8 years ago, all without regulatory pressure.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I believe it would have been appropriate for Ofcom to have mandated IPv6 as a condition to operate as an ISP.

Would have been sensible, but I don't think Ofcom see this level of detail in their remit, in theory the market would decide.

Unfortunately the world moved on, my only option for high speed is Virgin Media DOCSIS Coax, and this very large ISP has no IPv6 for consumers. (No idea about business leased lines). In the same way Plusnet still is "in trials" for over 10 years.