> most of you are probably using ipv6 through your mobile carrier and don’t even know it!
My mobile carrier provides dual stack (with NAT in the IPv4 side). So no problem with any kind of site. Are there operators who provide IPv6 only? Haven't really read up on that topic, but I guess that requires NAT64 because the average user needs to reach IPv4-only sites. Does that generally work well?
If yes, why can the poster of the submission not use that on his Hetzner instances?
Yes, T-Mobile for example. I just dumped the interface information from my iPhone and the only address available is an ipv6 address. Everything else is put through an ipv6 to ipv4 gateway. Works fine.
I had IPv6 only on the default APN configuration pushed by my carrier on Android, last time I checked it
And IPv4 only for roaming
Both v6 only, v4 only and v4+v6 were supported
For landlines, I'm surprised because some ISPs who were not having difficulties with ipv4 are being the fastest to switch to ipv6. While some who had to deal with CG-NAT and other horrible stuff are fine with ipv4, and haven't yet planned to move to ipv6
Why would Hetzner need to provide it? If you have several IPv6-only nodes you can rune one NAT64 node yourself. Of course that would work only if you save enough on IPv4 to pay for the extra node. And not if you are heavily network-bound.
There are also free NAT64 solutions, but of course you can't base anything but a random hobby project on something free. Maybe there are also commercial solutions, but IPv4 might still be too cheap to make that really interesting.
Actually the AskHN talks mostly about client cases. Those still seem "easy". Offering more than one service on let's say port 443 would require a full application level gateway / forward-proxy.
My mobile carrier provides dual stack (with NAT in the IPv4 side). So no problem with any kind of site. Are there operators who provide IPv6 only? Haven't really read up on that topic, but I guess that requires NAT64 because the average user needs to reach IPv4-only sites. Does that generally work well?
If yes, why can the poster of the submission not use that on his Hetzner instances?