I mean, at least over here, a white IP has been a paid service for as long as I can remember. Absolute majority of people don't need a static IP, which is why we haven't had internet "breaking" because of IPv4 running out.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But this is another interesting thing. Dynamic IP addresses made sense, when we were dialling up for internet, and the internet wasn't the utility it is now.

Back then we'd dial up for a few hours in the evening or weekend. Businesses that didn't have a permanent presence would connect in the day to send/receive emails etc. So, you could have 500 IP addresses to around 1500 users and re-use them successfully.

But now, what is the real point in a dynamic IP? Everyone has a router switched on 24/7 sitting on an IP. What is the real difference, in cost in giving a static IP over a dynamic one? Sure, CGNAT saved them IP addresses. But, with always on dynamic just doesn't make sense. Except, that you can charge for a static IP. The traffic added by the few people that want to run services is usually running against the tide of their normal traffic. So, that shouldn't really be an extra cost to them either.

If everyone that ran a website did the extra work (which is miniscule) to also operate on IPv6, and every ISP did the (admittedly more) work to provide IPv6 prefixes and ensure their supplied routers were configured for it, and that they had instructions to configure it on third party routers, IPv4 would become the minority pretty soon. It seems like it's just commercial opportunity that's holding us back now.

[–] GTG3000 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

From what I understand about the providers, they really don't like it when you're generating outbound traffic. Sure it's advertised to be symmetrical, but the actual hardware they place here can get bogged down if you start hosting a popular site (or seeding too much).

And of course, if they can charge you for a static IP then defaulting to dynamic is imperative, isn't it? Pretty sure they'd try that with IPv6 too just to keep the income stream.

Regardless, the actual issue with IPv6 around here seems to be that the providers either don't know how to or don't care to implement it properly. Sure I can tick on "IPv6" in my router, but that doesn't mean I have an unbroken chain or routing hardware that supports it connecting me to the great internet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And of course, if they can charge you for a static IP then defaulting to dynamic is imperative, isn’t it? Pretty sure they’d try that with IPv6 too just to keep the income stream.

I've mentioned it elsewhere. Some ISPs here in the UK have a dynamic IPv6 prefix. Want a static one? Sure, pay up.

I suppose to an extent this kind of thing is akin to low cost airlines. Sure you can "technically" get a flight for €15. But once you've made it even remotely bearable you'll be paying around the cost of a full service airline. But, it does make it very hard to have a website doing a proper price comparison.

I suspect it's the same here. I pay a bit more than most ISPs. But for that, I get decent in country support, fixed IPv6 prefix and static IP (I actually have a legacy IP block, but you don't get those included in the base price any more). Whereas plenty of other providers charge less, but will charge you for anything beyond the most basic of connections. It means my ISP always appears at the expensive end of price comparisons.

[–] GTG3000 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I just checked, getting a static IPv6 here in Russia from my ISP costs ~.4 eur per month. IPv4 is ~1 eur, so you get a discount if you go for v6! Oh and despite my ISP saying they support v6, connection I got doesn't have it at all. Probably whatever hardware they got in my house doesn't know what it is.