Since starlink supports v6, starlink users can p2p communicate with other v6 users.
Both starlink and local carriers don't provide proper legacy connectivity, they are encumbered by cgnat so p2p does not work. Without p2p communications, users are forced into a client-server model and it's much easier to block a small number of servers rather than millions of potential peers.
You can get a large block, split it up and announce it from different places but that doesn't stop someone blocking your larger allocation.
Getting multiple blocks is harder - the RIRs will want justification for this, and would rather give you a single large block than lots of fragmented ones.
Only legacy address space is frequently bought and sold, so it moves between AS#s a lot and is also heavily fragmented.
With v6 this is not the case, a given AS# will typically have a single large allocation and can make it larger if they need to, it won't be sold and moved and an entity can't trade it in to get a different allocation.
Likely very old/outdated hardware.
China is heavily pushing v6 and their "great firewall" has no problem with it.
Another issue they may have however is v6 enabling internal p2p communications directly between users whereas legacy addressing with cgnat does not, although they could block this pretty easily if they wanted.
Very few people use it because 10gbps equipment carries a pretty hefty price premium over 1gbps and wireless standards could not get anywhere close to it until recently.
Even today with wifi7, you will be hogging a LOT of the available wireless spectrum. In a country like Singapore where most people live in dense apartment blocks the level of congestion is going to mean that you never see anywhere close to the theoretical maximum throughput on any wireless network.
The money would be much better spent helping them catch up to other countries with IPv6 deployment. Singapore has much less IPv6 deployment then its closest neighbor Malaysia, and even lags behind Myanmar:
If they have proper planning/rollout, they don't need IPv6. Not sure why you are bringing it up.
Excellent point on potential wifi speeds. When I was living there, wifi speeds were horrible, even with tuning of channels, TX/RX power/sensivity and sorts. The spectrum is just incredibly jammed with uncontrolled amount of devices.
> The money would be much better spent helping them catch up to other countries with IPv6 deployment.
I don't understand why so many Fiber providers are IPv6 reluctant. Our last fiber provider (Frontier) abandoned it before it started. I'm on a fiber provider now w/ a choice of 8+ ISPs. Zero of them offer IPv6. I'm reading up on getting my own IPv6 AS.
" so many Fiber providers are IPv6 reluctant." This depends on the country. Usually "late internet countries" have more open to turn into IPv6. One German university has more IPv4 addresses than whole China.
The fiber provider I was assigned to by default put me behind CGNAT. To me, this hints to me that they don't have as many IPv4 as they need. I politely requested that they unNAT me and they eventually did.
notable: Their default DNS server can't resolve over half the common domains I tried, inc the one for their their own site. It returns an empty response.
Otherwise their service seems okay. I'm still switching to another provider - one that seems more grown up and sells 2.5Gb for $80/mo.
Any junk that adds itself to auto start without giving users the choice is cancer...
It's why Apple added a feature to macOS fairly recently which alerts you whenever something new is added.
This is generally caused by ignorance. Don't understand IPv6 so turn it off without investigating what the actual problem is. Usually it's caused by a broken IPv6 configuration - eg a route being announced but no actual connectivity.
Here IPv6 works perfectly and doesn't cause any problems. Many sites are much faster over v6 than legacy IP. Google stats show 45% of users access google over IPv6 so clearly it's working for all those millions of users too.
If IPv6 is not working you need to fix it, not turn it off.
They are fully compliant, SLAAC is part of the standard whereas DHCPv6 is an optional extra.
DHCPv6 also does not work without RA. DHCPv6 just assigns an address, a routable prefix, dns servers etc, it does not assign a subnet or any routes, you need route advertisements for that.
Seen like this, you can also argue that DHCP is an optional extra for IPv4, but it almost essential in most networks. Sure, IPv4 has no SLAAC that can be a valid alternative, but still, given that SLAAC doesn't solve every use case...
Not at all, your "local" network is the link-local address space, which legacy IP has no analog of. The link-local space cannot be routed either intentionally or accidentally.
RFC1918 address space IS routable, it just doesn't have a global route. There is nothing to stop devices adjacent to your wan interface (ie other customers) from manually adding a route to your RFC1918 address space via your firewall. Will that traffic be allowed? that depends on the device and its configuration, have you ever tested this scenario? probably not.
NAT is a hack to get around a shortage of address space, nothing more. Once the shortage is gone there's no more need for NAT. That's why although NAT with IPv6 is possible, it's very rarely used because you no longer have any valid reason to use it.
If you are think there are any other reasons to use NAT then you need to brush up on your network knowledge because a lot of smarter people than you or I are saying to avoid NAT and designing systems (eg IPv6) to fix the problems it causes.
US government advice is to avoid the use of NAT because of the extra complexity it introduces, which actually reduces security:
