Slashdot Mirror
DistroWatch Finally Adds Support For IPv6 (distrowatch.com)
We've frequently linked to DistroWatch for their coverage of Linux package and release announcements. Now an anonymous reader writes: The DistroWatch website introduced IPv6 support on Friday and the new protocol has been getting a lot of attention. "Over 8% of our traffic this weekend came from IPv6 addresses," commented DistroWatch contributor Jesse Smith. "It was a pleasant surprise, we were not expecting that many people would be using IPv6 yet."
When asked why DistroWatch enabled IPv6 access to their server at this time, Smith answered: "Partly it was an experiment to see how much interest there was in IPv6. Partly it was because it is a little embarrassing (in 2016) to have a technology focused website that is not making use of IPv6."
When asked why DistroWatch enabled IPv6 access to their server at this time, Smith answered: "Partly it was an experiment to see how much interest there was in IPv6. Partly it was because it is a little embarrassing (in 2016) to have a technology focused website that is not making use of IPv6."
Everybody should be using it, but nobody does. This has been the steady state for what, 20 years? We probably should re-do the thing and skip to IPv9 witha less grandiose than this second system but a nice and functional third. Perhaps with a different crew this time. That'd be nice.
Plenty of people are using IPv6. It's transparent to most so it requires literally no effort to enable it. Anyone using Apple products on their internal network for the last decade has used IPv6 (Bonjour) and in recent past almost all European and Asian providers and even large American ones (TWC) run dual stacks with some small pockets in Asia and some mobile networks having pure IPv6 (due to v4 exhaustion) with translation in place.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Partly it was because it is a little embarrassing (in 2016) to have a technology focused website that is not making use of IPv6."
Amazon AWS, are you listening?
Plenty of people are using IPv6
Especially at the weekend. Last weekend more than 11% of Google users were using IPv6. It's higher at the weekends because IPv6 is coming much faster to residential broadband and mobile, with corporate networks migrating more slowly.
I am with you except for the part where you say it "requires literally no effort to enable it". Where I live getting an IPv6 address requires calling up the ISP and requesting specifically an IPv6 address, which is available on the more expensive plans. Many VPS/dedicated hosts require the user to purchase IPv6 addresses and default to IPv4 only.
Depending on how services were configured (like web servers, FTP, etc) sometimes extra tweaks are required on the server side. That is assuming the daemon you are running even supports IPv6.
Then the firewall way need to have its rules updated in same cases to allow/block IPv6 traffic.
Depending on which domain registrar/nameserver provider you use, some extra steps may be required to enable IPv6.
It is surprisingly how many steps can be required to get services to support IPv6. There is no one big hurdle, but a lot of little ones. It's no wonder many companies/websites still don't support IPv6.
Classic mistake. You declared it dead and propose to superseed it with something that doesn't fundamentally address the issue of IPv6's low adoption.
As for being dead sign up for internet in the Netherlands and you'll be greeted with a fully public IPv6 address, and carrier grade NATing on your shared IPv4 address. We've only just run out of IPv4 addresses. It takes a conundrum for people to upgrade infrastructure. No one wants to maintain money on the status quo, call it human nature.
In the UK, none of the mobile providers support ipv6, neither do most of the big ISPs... There are a few smaller niche isps that do, and even then you have to explicitly request it.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
IPv6 would change the Internet fundamentally as it ends privacy and anonymity. Your 128-bit address most often will contain your device's 48-bit hardware MAC directly in the lower 64 bits (split by FE:FE). That MAC can track you across networks. Cookies become superfluous except as session variable holders (shopping cart). And for everything IP (incl UDP), not just HTTP[S].
Yes, I'm aware that DHCPv6 servers might anonymize the interface address, locally translating (hiding) the MAC as NATv4 currently does. Or you might be able to rewrite your MAC. Do you believe TPTB will encourage this? A dozen hw mfrs who need radio (FCC) approvals will be easy to pressure. The few non-MAC routers serve as a useful marker (surveillence filter) and can easily be tracked.
it was because it is a little embarrassing (in 2016) to have a technology focused website that is not making use of IPv6
Hmm... then let's see the aaaa records for slashdot.org...
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
But most end users won't care about any of that. It either works or it doesn't. I had IPv6 at home from TWC for several weeks before I finally realized my router's IPv6 address was actually routable (I had enabled IPv6 years ago, it self-assigned one for all that time)
Yes, on the business side, in the US at least, IPv6 may require some extra steps but unless you're a service provider or a network admin, you don't need to worry about it. Cheap VPS will probably go in the direction of dual stack or even IPv6-only as the v4 pool actually gets exhausted, once that starts happening you'll see more of a push for everyone to implement v6.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Do share your deep insights at http://ipv6excuses.com/
Many VPS/dedicated hosts require the user to purchase IPv6 addresses and default to IPv4 only.
And then on the other hand, there is at least *one* VPS vendor who defaults to ipv6 and charges a LOT more for an ipv4 address.
I have a 256mb Linux vps hosted in Holland that provides one ipv6 address at $3.99US/YEAR... If you need/want an ipv4 address, the
vps price goes up to $27US/Year.. This is kind of how I'd expect things to work based on the fact that v4 addresses are getting scarce...
I use the vps simply as a "playground" and if you're curious, the vps vendor is vds6.net, and they offer hosts in Romania and Holland.
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
You can include Cox Communications on the majority of their areas. I'd been using a Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker 6to4 tunnel for ipv6 support, but went with the native dual-stack that Cox provides..
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
I have a vps hosted in Holland, $3.99US/Year and it comes with one ipv6 address and zero ipv4 ones.. If you want/need a v4 address, the vps now costs $27US/Year..
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Compact disks took 20 years from invention to mass market. In that light IPv6 isn't doing too badly. To say it has failed is narrow minded and doesn't consider that like a snowball it is slow to start and like a snowball if you don't get on board you'll just be hurting yourself once it really gets moving.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Everybody should be using it, but nobody does. This has been the steady state for what, 20 years? We probably should re-do the thing and skip to IPv9 witha less grandiose than this second system but a nice and functional third. Perhaps with a different crew this time. That'd be nice.
What non-breaking technological solutions are you proposing?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
They shouldn't care what the underlying infrastructure is, as long as it gets then there. At the same time IPv6 support does provide some geek cred and one less unknown to deal with.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
According to the statistics available here, https://www.google.ca/intl/en/... IPv6 is well on it's way.
Eleven percent adoption hardly constitutes "well on its way", it's more like "finally getting some traction". In the sense of resource wastage and slow adoption, there is no question at this point that IPv6 is one of the great failures of technology history. While IPv6 did not die, what it has failed to do is replace IPv4, and at this point, it quite possibly never will. If IPv6 had been well designed it would be handling 90% of internet traffic long ago and IPv4 would be well on its way to being as dead as DOS.
I would not discount the possibility of a properly backward compatible variant of IPv4 emerging, to address the very real needs of popular web servers that have no economically viable choice other than maintaining compatibility with IPv4 far into the future.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I read what you write and almost everything the opposite is true.
"With IPv4, NAT was normal." No, NAT was a kludge designed to deal with the fact that we were quickly running out of IPv4 addresses. If it wasn't for NAT we would have run out of IPv4 addresses more than a decade ago.
"But that means most users will use protocols which transmit their IPv6 address(es), including the local part, inside the protocol payload." All modern IPv6 implementations use temporary "privacy addresses." The local part is never exposed unless the enduser configures their systems to explicitly expose it.
"We will also see less flexibility regarding port numbers, because it's not needed anymore." What does that even mean?
BT and Sky are in the process of introducing IPv6. Google are now showing over 11% UK connections via IPv6, compared to something like 2% at the start of the year.
Not just Apple - every Windows version since Vista has had IPv6 as its native IP: Windows 7 home networking uses IPv6, rather than IPv4.
It's really difficult to be backwards compatible with v4 though, at least in the way you're probably envisioning. There's only 32 bits available in the v4 header for the src/dest address, and the pidgeonhole principle isn't exactly something you can just ignore. How would a v4 computer specify which address to send a packet to if there isn't enough space in the header field to do it?
There's a reason you can't send packets directly between v4 and v6 endpoints, and it's not because v6 is badly designed. It's because you can't do it.
Apple's Bonjour stack defaults to using the IPv6. Although it is possible that it resolves to v4 only, all printers and other devices so far have resolved to v6
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Privacy addresses don't overflow your ARP tables. And in any case, you don't need privacy addresses to keep your MAC out of your address; RFC 7217 is a thing and Windows 7+ use it (or something very similar) by default out of the box, or you can use DHCPv6 or even just manually pick an address.
And I can't seriously believe that you're arguing that we want an address shortage. We don't.
(In a similar vein, we don't want to pay tons of money to deal with NAT forever, which is why people are telling you that using NAT on v6 is dumb: because it'll make networks more complicated, and thus more expensive, more or less forever.)
Well, it's the default setting for the operating systems favored by those "less knowledgeable", so that pretty much covers that, doesn't it. Android (the world's most popular OS), Windows (your grandparents most popular OS), and iOS (hipsters most popular OS) all randomize the address by default.
Whether or not that's a GOOD idea is certainly debateable, but it's what you wanted.
So the less knowledgeable, people who don't even know what IPv6 is, get a randomized address. People even less knowledgeable than that make panicky, mis-informed posts on Slashdot about OMG I'll be tracked.
Dual stack is already backwards compatible with v4 in some awkward way, so it's an existence proof. The object of the exercise would be to do it less awkwardly, in a single protocol. Clearly, an extended protocol, say, v4x, must tuck away some more address bits in the already crowded header. To reliably identify extended addresses on v4x aware hosts and to make them fail on v4x unaware host, it would be enough to change the protocol number. (There happens to be a good candidate available for historical reasons.) Extended address hosts would not be able to connect directly to non-extended address hosts, but we already have a way of dealing with that: NAT. Over time, extended address hosts could drop the NAT. Not straightforward, but doable if the will is there. Naturally, any proposal remotely like that is going to get shouted down by the IPv6 mafia without any technical analysis at all, but who knows what might happen if in another year or two IPv6 still looks like it's not going to break the 50% barrier in the next decade. One thing IPv6 did succeed at: all the kernel and library plumbing now supports at least 128 bit addresses, which would considerably ease the pain of trying again with something that looks and acts a lot more like IPv4, the protocol that will not die.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There is no possibility for a "properly backward compatible variant of IPv4." Any change to the protocol in which the goal is to increase the address space, which is the mean impetus for all of this, required a re-write which means no backward compatibility.
You seem to be unclear on the definition of backward compatibility. This means that the old protocol is a subset of the new one. There are countless examples where protocol backward compatibility has been achieved in a useful way. Unfortunately, IPv6 is not one of them.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
No. It has not endorsed NAT. In fact is explicitly discouraged. RFC 6296 is
a experimental (not standards track) RFC which says DO NOT DO THIS
but if you do this is a least worst way.
For reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not
recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6.
Where translation is implemented, however, this specification
provides a mechanism that has fewer architectural problems than
merely implementing a traditional stateful Network Address Translator
in an IPv6 environment. It also provides a useful alternative to the
complexities and costs imposed by multihoming using provider-
independent addressing and the routing and network management issues
of overlaid ISP address space. Some problems remain, however. The
reader should consider the alternatives suggested in [RFC4864] and
the considerations of [RFC5902] for improved approaches.
Funnily enough, what you've described there is basically IPv6. If you think that NAT is the way to go about connecting to legacy v4-only hosts, then what's wrong with NAT64 in IPv6, which does exactly that?
Funnily enough, what you've described there is basically IPv6.
In some wildly theoretical sense, it is something like IPv6, but then it isn't at all. Do you even know what an IPv6 header looks like?
If you think that NAT is the way to go about connecting to legacy v4-only hosts, then what's wrong with NAT64 in IPv6, which does exactly that?
Nothing wrong with the technique, but there's something wrong with IPv6, namely not the slightest attempt to retain backward compatibility with IPv4 at the protocol level.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yeah? It's not fundamentally any different to a v4 header. It's got a new protocol number and more of it is dedicated to storing addresses. Yes, it's 2x the size, but that's because the src+dst addresses are already 32 bytes to v4's 20 bytes total.
Presumably you were suggesting to do the same thing, because there's no way to fit a pair of 128-bit addresses into the v4 header without making it bigger.
Nothing wrong with the technique, but there's something wrong with IPv6, namely not the slightest attempt to retain backward compatibility with IPv4 at the protocol level.
Well, there's that version number in the header, which allows the two to coexist. But more to the point: how is your v4x any different to this? You're suggesting doing exactly the same things v6 did.
(Note that I'm not shouting you down here; I'm pointing out that you're proposing essentially the thing that we already did.)
Not from Canada. All the big ISPs are in the "we are thinking about considering starting to propose a meeting to plan a test rollout".
They think they made progress on IPv6 day by making their home page [and only that page] accessible via IPv6. And, of course, virtually nobody in Canada could access it via IPv6.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
You seem to be unclear on the definition of backward compatibility. This means that the old protocol is a subset of the new one. There are countless examples where protocol backward compatibility has been achieved in a useful way. Unfortunately, IPv6 is not one of them.
What everyone like you who thinks you can create a backwards compatible IPvX always forgets is when it comes to addressing, it's about more than addressing bits, but routability.
I have yet to see a single IPv4 successor proposal that features backwards compatibility that is actually routable. One of the major problems on the Internet today is the routing system is a complete mess. And every "backward compatible" IPv4 successor people like you have proposed only make the situation 100 times worse .
IPv6 makes routing significantly easier. Routing an IPv6 packet requires less processing overhead, permitting routers to be much more efficient.
Please leave protocol design to the experts.
Yaz
Since you consider yourself an expert, would you care to explain why you think that IPv6 is especially routable? (Hint: don't bother parroting the lame handwaving from wikipedia)
Second thing is, have you seen any IPv4 successor proposals? Link please.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yeah? It's not fundamentally any different to a v4 header. It's got a new protocol number and more of it is dedicated to storing addresses. Yes, it's 2x the size, but that's because the src+dst addresses are already 32 bytes to v4's 20 bytes total.
Presumably you were suggesting to do the same thing, because there's no way to fit a pair of 128-bit addresses into the v4 header without making it bigger.
(Ab)using the version field (not the protocol field!) is not the only way to extend IPv4, probably not even a good way, however that is a red herring. The point is, there is no such thing as an IPv6 packet that looks like IPv4, even when the source and destination addresses permit it. That is the big gaping flaw of IPv6 that lead to the adoption fiasco.
Nothing wrong with the technique, but there's something wrong with IPv6, namely not the slightest attempt to retain backward compatibility with IPv4 at the protocol level.
Well, there's that version number in the header, which allows the two to coexist.
Not only as separate protocols, but separate infrastructures. IPv6 has its own home rolled approach to multicast for example, which nobody uses as opposed to IPv4 multicast which is heavily used (and will not be going away any time soon because it runs the world's financial systems). IPv6 has its own NIH address syntax. Everything that could possibly be made different about IPv6 was made different. Second system syndrome in its most ugly form.
But more to the point: how is your v4x any different to this? You're suggesting doing exactly the same things v6 did.
(Note that I'm not shouting you down here; I'm pointing out that you're proposing essentially the thing that we already did.)
I'm not making a proposal. I am saying that the time is right to make a proposal. I didn't know that there's actually a proposal on the table, here. I will be taking some time to study it, I suggest you do too. It seems I'm far from the only person who thinks that IPv6 is still a disaster and there is room to attack the problem from another direction.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You can use the sarcastic "finally" in the headline when you publish a single AAAA record, Slashdot, that "news for nerds" who can't be nerdy enough to turn on IPv6 themselves but are happy to report on it all the time.
Since you consider yourself an expert, would you care to explain why you think that IPv6 is especially routable?
Sure. There are a lot of things that will make IPv6 easier to route:
https://www.google.com/intl/en...
The growth curve is clearly showing exponential growth here, and we're now well into the rapid adoption phase. Yes, the absolute value is 11% (now 12). but it will continue to grow with increasing speed. It *is* coming. It took a while, but it's a juggernaught which can't be stopped now. We'll all be using it in a couple of years at this rate. All the major ISPs have committed to do this, and network effects will drag the rest along in time.
I've been on native v6 for three years now.
You can with NAT64/DNS64. This is used where a purely IPv6 network needs to access the old IPv4 network. My ISP even offers it as a service to those wanting to go v6 only (I haven't tried it though, I'm happy dual stacked for now).
Canada is at 8.9%. I know Roger's made the switch, I just don't know when exactly since they didn't announce it. I only noticed when I was showing one friend another one's website and it was erroring out, Turns out the issue was that the website had ipv6 configured in DNS but no ipv6 VHOPST entry. It was a weird one and my friend had no idea he even had Ipv6 enabled. I think Telus has it enabled on landline infrastructure as well.
Yeah, because everyone knows tech doesn't change hardly at all in 2 years.
IPv6 Internet traffic has been doubling since 2000. The problem is IPv4 traffic has also been about doubling. Most of IPv6's increase has been canceled out by IPv4's increase. From 2014-2015 it went from ~2.5%-5%, and 2015-2016 5%-10%. It's having exponential growth as a percentage. Assuming it can sustain its current rate of growth, we'll have about 100% IPv6 in 3 more years. I doubt this will happen, but it's growing quickly.
VHOST even.. man I can't type when I wake up in the morning.
Everybody should be using it, but nobody does.
Not nobody but certainly a lot less than is desirable.
This has been the steady state for what, 20 years?
Unfortunately people don't do stuff until there is real pressure to do so. As the IPv4 crunch has started to bite harder providers have started to take IPv6 more seriously. Theres still a long way to go but there has been a real increase in adoption over the past few years. https://www.google.com/intl/en...
We probably should re-do the thing and skip to IPv9 with a less grandiose than this second system but a nice and functional third.
Yes the IPv6 proponents had some grandiose but half-baked ideas. To name a few Heirachical routing, abandonment of NAT, mandatory IPsec, site local addresses, A6 and DNAME, Stateless mac-address based autoconfiguration.
But yet another new system isn't going to help anyone, the problems can and have been solved while keeping the core protocol compatible.
The heirachical routing crap has already been dropped in favor of using the same routing methods as are used for IPv4. A6 and DNAME have been abandoned in favour of letting companies get PI space like they can for IPv4. NAT is still discouraged but there are implementations available for those who want/need it and protocols have been put in place to delegate prefixes to customer networks automatically. Mandatory ipsec has been abandoned. Site local addresses have been replaced by the far more sensible "unique local addresses" which acknowlage that "site" is an ill-defined concept. Mechanisms have been put in place that allow running a V6 only access network while still providing limited IPv4 functionality for clients (there are two competing options for this DS-Lite and NAT64) . We have privacy extensions to avoid MAC address based tracking with stateless autoconfiguration or alteratively you can use DHCPv6 instead.
Perhaps with a different crew this time. That'd be nice.
I think we already have a different crew, we now have people who work at real ISPs designing IPv6 soloutions that really work.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
What does Link Local mean? Simple fact is everyone hates IPv6 because absolutely no one knows what that even means save for a few professionals.
We don't know what's a fe80:: or 2001: address either, following from the first point.
In some wildly theoretical sense, it is something like IPv6, but then it isn't at all. Do you even know what an IPv6 header looks like?
Yes, it's worse than IPv6. All of the same issues, but wait, there's more! When someone doesn't understand the problem, they always have a simple solution that no one else has thought of.
Ah, fair point on my version/protocol mixup.
The point is, there is no such thing as an IPv6 packet that looks like IPv4, even when the source and destination addresses permit it. That is the big gaping flaw of IPv6 that lead to the adoption fiasco.
The thing is... there is! 6to4 is roughly that. It's hardly a big gaping flaw in v6 if it's something that v6 already did.
(6to4 sends a v6 packet between two v4 hosts by setting the protocol header to 41 and putting the v6 packet inside the v4 one. Those packets look like any other v4 packets.)
Everything that could possibly be made different about IPv6 was made different.
I disagree with this. v6 is actually very similar to v4. Routing, subnetting etc works in exactly the same way as it does in v4, and it runs over the same L2 links in the same way that v4 does. Many of the differences that do exist (e.g. NDP vs ARP) are directly due to the increased address size.
About the only big differences are RAs (except v4 has those too), multicast instead of broadcast for neighbor discovery (but v4 does multicast too) and link-local addresses (v4 has those as well).
I'm not making a proposal. I am saying that the time is right to make a proposal. I didn't know that there's actually a proposal on the table, here. I will be taking some time to study it, I suggest you do too. It seems I'm far from the only person who thinks that IPv6 is still a disaster and there is room to attack the problem from another direction.
You are far from the first person I've seen to say that. I'm getting somewhat fed up of seeing people say "v6 sucks because it didn't do <x>" or "they should've done <y>" when x is something v6 did and y wouldn't actually work. I've yet to see anybody that had any ideas that weren't one or the other of those.
I've looked over that draft you linked to before, and if I remember correctly it's roughly suggesting the same mechanism as 6to4 (possibly with some NAT64-like mixed in?). I don't see how proposing something we already have is going to help.
You don't need to know either of those. v6 is simple enough that your grandmother can use it.
I'm guessing that vds6.net is https://vds6.net/. You may also be interested in http://www.lowendspirit.com/, who are only a few bucks per year as well.
While I wouldn't argue the need for better firewall software (something that does per-application firewalling on Linux, please?), you're not actually a sitting duck on v6. Your router's firewall will prevent any inbound connections, and the sheer size of a v6 /64 means that it's hard to even find a functioning IP to attempt connect to (although you shouldn't rely on that obscurity).
If you're going to disable anything, you're better off disabling v4.
Not bad since it was at 5% last year, and 2.5% the year before.
No, just the v4 part of it. That's where most of the nasties will come from, and disabling v4 will help a lot more on that front than disabling v6 will.
Windows 10 is completely orthogonal here. "Don't use Win10" is another thing I won't argue with, but it has nothing to do with v6.
$ host distrowatch.com
distrowatch.com has address 82.103.136.226
distrowatch.com has IPv6 address 2a00:9080:1:20c::1
Not quite sure where you're going with this, but there you go.
Thus, a given /32 will be doled out only to a single RIR, who can break it up into smaller units to LIR's, to eventually be broken into /48, /64, and /56's for destination routers.
RIRs get allocated blocks much bigger than a /32 which they then split up into /32 (or sometimes larger) blocks to allocate to LIRs (LIRs are normally ISPs, hosting providers etc). The RIRs also allocate provider independent /48 blocks to end networks. Each of those LIRs and each of those networks with PI space will advertise it's addresses into the global routing table.
There were proposals for a more heirachical allocation and routing scheme but they never really worked out because the internet is NOT a heirachy. It's a collection of networks with constantly shifting relationships.
For many years you could not get IPv6 PI space. The proposal instead was that you ran multiple prefixes in paralell and relied on experimental DNS features (look up A6 and DNAME) to put the multiple addresses in DNS. End hosts would then have to decide which IP it was best to use to contact a given other end host even though end hosts normally have no clue about internet routing. As you can imagine that idea went down like a lead balloon. In the mid to late 2000s (afaict ARIN did it in 2006, APNIC in 2007 and RIPE in 2009) the RIRs relented and made provider independent IPv6 space available.
According to the site you linked the IPv6 routing table is currently about half the size of the IPv4 one. It will be interesting to see how big the IPv6 routing table ends up if/when the world completes the move to IPv6. On the one hand there will be less legacy crap and less need to make extra allocations because a network ran out of addresses. On the other hand since NAT is discouraged I would expect more companies to go for PI space.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Sorry I was wrong about table sizes, the IPv4 table is currently about 20 times the size of the IPv6 one, not twice the size.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I hear they say it's embarrassing to have a technology-related web site without IPv6 in 2016:
potomac:~ carlos$ host slashdot.org
slashdot.org has address 216.34.181.45
slashdot.org mail is handled by 10 mx.sourceforge.net.
potomac:~ carlos$ host www.slashdot.org
www.slashdot.org has address 216.34.181.48
potomac:~ carlos$
Where are your quad-A records ?