Jason Tubnor 🇦🇺Is there an appetite for a boutique #IPv6 only ISP?
Andre@Tubsta No! No! No!
Eric Schultz@Tubsta I'd tolerate an ISP that supports IPv6 at all at this point.
gyptazy@Tubsta depends on what kind of ISP… with BoxyBSD we have something g like this.
Phillip Vuchetich@Tubsta IMHO, IPv6-only ISP would not be useful in the US for at least several years. There are still a lot of IPv4-only residential and small business services that would be inaccessible without 6to4 NAT, and at least some people with IPv4-only access might not be able to reach the IPv6 network reliably.
I only have IPv6 because of the free Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker service, but it takes effort to set up a usable dual stack internet connection. My ISP has zero plans for IPv6. There is little consumer demand for it, probably because NAT (or "CGNAT") fills the gap well enough for most consumers. it would require staff and consumer training, network redesign, systems testing, etc., all for no additional income
OTOH, an IPv6-only server may be viable for the right group.
@philvuchetich It is different down here in Australia. How see it, treat IPv6 like the internet in the 90s. Once a cohort thinks they are missing out on something they’ll want it too.
I think the reasoning that you provided is what FUD the industry has been dumping out for years. It isn’t hard and unless they keep hardware for 2 decades in service, it isn’t a major leap
I think the reasoning that you provided is what FUD the industry has been dumping out for years. It isn’t hard and unless they keep hardware for 2 decades in service, it isn’t a major leap
@philvuchetich NAT needs to die. Subnetting, firewall rules etc are so much easier. No hair pinning, IP exhaustion on CGNAT devices. It is just a mess. All the big players are deep into IPv6 and the world outside of the USA has already got on with it. China and India are well down the path and if you aren’t v6 you are missing about 2.5 billion pairs of eyeballs
@Tubsta there is a lot of FUD in the US. My local (within 1 state, not regional/national) fiber-only ISP certainly uses IPv6 capable equipment since their infrastructure is probably all less than 10 years old. The national cable ISP that some of my family uses (in another city) uses dual stack to the cable modem. Cellular carriers seem to be adopting dual stack as well (based on my anecdotal observations when using my phone and testing cellular IOT devices on a few networks). As you said, IPv6 is common elsewhere, so it is the US ISPs choosing not to support it yet.
Knut Karevoll@Tubsta Anyone who want to try #IPv6only can just disable IPv4 with any ISP that provides native IPv6. So there is no appetite for such an ISP. It is more the ISPs that reject dual stack and switch to #464xlat and #IPv6mostly
Michael W Lucas 
at one point I considered starting a social network only accessible via IPv6, DNSSEC, and with X.509 client certs.
Because "f*** you, we need to move forward, that's why."