this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
8 points (83.3% liked)
IPv6
315 readers
4 users here now
IPv6 Discussions
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, but why does the IP protocol used have anything to do with them as a service. It sounds to me like you like DDG. To be honest lack of IPv6 support is a petty reason not to use them (or any service for that matter).
My network is entirely v6, I tolerate NAT64 given the current internet landscape but every service I can cut out that needs NAT64 the closer I can get to disabling NAT64 which is ultimately my goal. Still a long way from that but I'd like to get there. Additionally the NAT adds latency as it resides outside of my normal network path. I've also taken up a policy of not using new services that don't have v6 if at all possible. That was a key factor in deciding what lemmy instance to use. While it might not matter to you it's something I look at.
For people like us (IPv6 advocates), moving away from IPv4-only services is just like voting with our wallet. Well, except that the flow we are looking at is not money flow, but internet traffic instead.
Obviously such a movement is not going to make a huge dent in the grand scheme of things -- very few people care about the internet protocol they are using. But the idea is that it will eventually end up in someone's log that, a lack of IPv6 support is driving customers away and/or implementation of IPv6 support is attracting new customers.
Also, it doesn't hurt anyone else except us when we purposefully move away from IPv4-only services even though the IPv6-capable services are worse ;) Anecdotally speaking though, that's a rare case.
This tbh