• Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The thing is that if IPv6 were actually adopted, it would be straight up better. For everyone. It’s easier to use if it’s all the networking instead of just a niche case.

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s really not though. ISPs are a problem, but every hosting provider I’ve used has offered IPv6. It’s really trivial to setup IPv6 name DNS, and host a website on both IPv4 and IPv6. I just do it by default now.

        Once it becomes the default to deploy to both, if IPv4 died then the IPv6 side would just keep working.

        For DNS, you can make a single glue record contain an IPv4 and IPv6 address.
        DNS just needs A and AAAA records for the Name servers. NS records still point to the hostname as normal.

        For Web servers, the web server just needs to bind to the IPv6 address(es). Then in DNS just have an A and AAAA record for each website hostname. The server name directives will cover both.

        There really isn’t much to it right now. The technology is mature now. It used to be a pain, but now it isn’t.

        • yeehaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          It really is for me when I’ve got thousands of servers and hundreds of firewall rules, hundreds of subnets and routing to worry about.