This thread keeps coming back to mobile carriers. Has anyone tested Google Fi specifically? They claim full v6 support but I've seen reports of NAT64 weirdness on their flexible plan.
IPv6-only hosting is finally practical
petegrid1990
Member
its5 said:
Google Fi specifically?
My brother has Fi. I just texted him to try my old v6-only photo site. Works on his Pixel, loads fine. But that's one data point, one phone, one city. The MVNO problem is statistical, not universal.
petegrid1990 said:
The MVNO problem is statistical
Statistics don't help when it's your mom. Or your paying customer. I don't understand the rush to v6-only when v4 addresses are still cheap enough to ignore. The entire thread is people finding workarounds for a problem that dual stack doesn't have.
LichunLars
Member OP
chansoda3 said:
People finding workarounds for a problem that dual stack doesn't have
The workaround is the feature. No NAT table on the server means no state exhaustion, no hairpinning bugs, no UPnP vulnerabilities on the edge. My Contabo v6-only box handles 50k concurrent connections without breathing hard. The v4+v6 box I had before choked at 12k because the NAT table filled. Different workloads, different optimizations.
1ms or I don't want it
Late to this but I went v6-only on a Hetzner cloud instance in Falkenstein six months ago. Dual stack on the load balancer, v6-only on the app servers behind it. Best of both worlds. The LB handles the v4 noise, the app servers stay clean. If you're not doing this architecture you're either small enough that it doesn't matter, or big enough that you should be.