Subject: Re: why IPv6 is bad, No, SMTP is IPv4, Was: SMTP and IPv6 Date: Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:28:38AM +1200 Quoting Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx): > > Given how hostile consumer ISPs are to retail customers runing servers > > visible to the public, I don't get it. It makes P2P stuff somewhat easier > > but UPNP and STUN already let you do a lot of it from behind a NAT. > > On the other hand, ISPs dislike the costs and hassles of CGN. Why else would Google and FB see the fraction of IPv6 users continuing to slowly increase each month? This strongly correlates with the opinions and feelings of people around me running CGNAT nodes. They really don't want to, and would rather have the v6 rollout go much faster. Every VOD session served over v6 is one headache point less for them. IPv6 is inevitable, necessary and we should do much better in advocating for its use -- by example not the least! -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668 Hey, wait a minute!! I want a divorce!! ... you're not Clint Eastwood!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
