Timeline for Does Server Fault plan to support IPv6?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18 at 14:42 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | I've pulled [status-deferred] from this ticket because it is being tracked on Meta Stack Exchange. It is also not, to my knowledge, something that we are presently planning to do, though it may still eventually be done. | |
| Jun 18 at 14:38 | history | edited | SlateStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:14 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 9, 2012 at 13:26 | vote | accept | David North | ||
| Feb 3, 2012 at 18:53 | answer | added | ZypherMod | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 8, 2011 at 10:30 | comment | added | womble Mod | IPv6 day coming and going without notice is a bug, not a feature. As far as why it should be done, it's because we're basically out of IPv4 space but people are still wanting new servers. | |
| Jun 9, 2011 at 2:14 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | "IPv6 Day" has now been and gone and I couldn't help but notice that it was one of the worlds greatest ever non-events. :) | |
| May 30, 2011 at 22:09 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @John - well, there's no rush even as the SE guys have pointed out, they'll think about doing it next year. The real issue with IPv6 adoption is that nobody has really comitted to it, and until some big players do it won't get anywhere. Google have IPv6 as an opt-in, as do Facebook, but I don't know of any other big players. I actually think that the SE sites, being focussed very heavilly on highly technical people, might actually see an above average amount of IPv6 traffic (most sites report < 1% IPv6 traffic, so 1% would be a huge increase) | |
| May 30, 2011 at 22:03 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @Mark, what;'s the rush? I can't see IPv4 disappearing for at least another decade, by which time Stack Exchange may either no longer exist or have evolved into something else. NAT is a separate issue altogether and is not all bad. In fact it has a number of advantages that make my job easier. | |
| May 30, 2011 at 21:52 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @John - because, eventually it's going to have to be accessible by IPv6. Maybe not in the next 2-3 years, but why not lead by example at making the internet better (and IPv6 will make it better, gooooooodbye NAT) | |
| May 30, 2011 at 20:30 | comment | added | user62491 | @John: Because it's shiny! | |
| May 29, 2011 at 22:01 | history | edited | ZypherMod |
edited tags
|
|
| May 29, 2011 at 22:01 | comment | added | Zypher Mod | see: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/86227/world-ipv6-day/… | |
| May 29, 2011 at 5:13 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | Why? In real and practical terms, why? | |
| May 28, 2011 at 21:28 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | +1 - I was planning on asking a similar question myself :) | |
| May 28, 2011 at 15:34 | comment | added | sysadmin1138 Mod | I am not a ServerFault admin, but considering they're using HAProxy for a bunch of stuff (blog.serverfault.com/post/…), and HAProxy IPv6 support is still evolving, I'm guessing they're not going to participate on IPv6 day. | |
| May 28, 2011 at 10:56 | history | asked | David North | CC BY-SA 3.0 |