Further discussions on IPv6

Not a single word about the importance of IPv6 in expanding how this can improve bring a fair amount of extra space offering to the network.
Unfortunatelly due to some fear developers have about IPv6 and put blocks like “if everybody does’t have IPv6 it is impossible” this may seems a distant thing to happen yet.

Didn’t Storj say they don’t have customer demand for IPv6 support? Who cares if SNOs use it if there’s nobody paying for it.


There is not much storj can do if customers not using IPV6.


This is not correct and often said as a justification to not have to do or think about it. Even if customets don’t ask for it specifically, and it is expected that fewer will understand this technical part to know how it improve things, still IPv6 support can reasonably make it easier for more node to contribute their storage when one doesn’t have a Public IPv4 address.

Unfortunatelly most users, and even node operators or developers don’t have the necessary technical knowledge to understand the technical details on how it can work alongside with IPv4 and tend to think it is something minor or even cosmetic and makes little difference to the improvments it can bring to the whole thing.

Even if end users don’t user it broadly it can still serve to node operators to contribute storage and for gateways to consume it.

1 Like

It is generally a good idea to support it in new features and/or changes. It shouldn’t take much extra time for a skilled dev.

The problem here is that an ipv6 only libuplink user will not be able to fetch enough pieces to reconstruct the objects. This problem might be the same for a ipv4 only user in a distant future where nodes only have ipv6. Nodes will have to be dual stack for a very long time.

1 Like

Contribute their storage to who? Being an advocate for IPv6 is admirable, but as you’ve been told more than once, there “isn’t currently demand for IPv6 from our customers”.

If the demand was there, Storj could add it faster (as they’ve said). I’m sure it will come: but there are many more features ahead of it in line that will gain/retain more paying customers.

Those who have little knowledge about IPv6 will always argue superficial things like “there is no demand” even thought there is never any data to support that, rather than discuss technical aspects of how is possible to have it implemented, alternatives and cenarios. As there is some work to undertand something new it seems easier to reduce that to a minor thing without have to discuss it with technical arguments.

Storj nrver said that could be added easier. Instead in order to avoid more detailed technical discussion it was simply said by some that they understand it is all or nothing, meaning never without any proper technical and detailed discussion.


Regardless what other features are on the line, this one is a bug, not a “nice to have things”. Not having full IPv6 support from day zero is always a concerning thing for any project. This is not ideology, but goes in line with Internet Archtechture Board (IAB), IETF and other institions said about IPv4 which is a legacy protocol. IPv6 is the current Internet protocol and any project that is brought up from day zero without full IPv6 support has a problem.

1 Like

Demand is a business concern, not technical. A rep of Storj said they don’t have customer demand. I linked it. You don’t need to even know what IPv6 stands for to understand a business decision based on demand.

Nor did I. They said they’re “sure there would be significant interest to get a solution in place faster than what it is now”. Faster. Not easier.

Man… some dude in this thread was just talking about “never any data to support” assertions. I hope they’re still around. Perhaps they could talk to the Storj sales team? Storj can speak about what customers have been asking them for, and what they have been willing to pay for… and then that random forum poster can let them know how both Storj and those paying customers should be concerned, and that they both don’t realize a lack of IPv6 is a problem.

Just ignore business requirements. And existing processes and infrastructure and workflows. And even the basic economic viability of the company providing the services. If you put those to the side… IPv6 support can sound pretty important! :wink:


Out of pure idle curiosity, what is the technical reason that you @FREDY think that IPv6 is a deal breaker?

Not “it’s nice to have”, but “it improves TTFB” or “it improves latency”.


Still not a single word about the technical merits on how this could be fixed.
Customer requests are served via feature requests. Lack of IPv6 is a bug.
What people that still disregard IPv6 complety try to do is to make it a feature request which is not.
Any product that comes up now a days (and for quiet a while) without full IPv6 support has a bug in it, regardless if customers asked or not, if the team behind it undertands the technicals behind it or not, and this says a lot about the whole thing and potential to get things done both other features requesta or bug reports.

1 Like

Did the entire discourse add me to their ignore list? I can’t seem to get a straight answer out of anyone.


Ok. Lets say lack of IPv6 support is a bug. That sounds like an understandable position. I think many would still want to argue it’s a feature, or enhancement… but lets just call it a bug.

If we say it is a bug, but to the Storj company it’s a low-priority bug… did we just put this thread to bed?

No you’re just not keeping up: the goalposts aren’t being just moved on the field… they’re sometimes ending up an a different city :rofl:

(I’m seeing if calling the whole thing a ‘bug’ works :wink: )


I disabled IPV6 a few days ago in order to squeeze a bit more throughput out of my potatoe router. It seems like it slightly helped.

Other than that I noticed no difference.


Because of the way Storj network works, both the nodes and the customers have to support IPv6. I’m sure if a potential customer popped up and said “we are going to store x PB of data on the network, but we need IPv6 support” Storj would try to figure something out, possibly asking for IPv6-compatible nodes and, of course, modifying the software so it support IPv6. Maybe such a customer will pop up someday, but not today.
Storj has said that there is no demand for IPv6 from the customers. This means that adding the support for the nodes is pointless, since IPv6-only nodes would not see any traffic and nodes compatible with both protocols would only see traffic on IPv4.
Even better - adding IPv6 support would fragment the network. It would be possible for a customer to upload a file using IPv4 and then be unable to download it using IPv6 because most of that file ended up on IPV4-only nodes (same applies to IPv6-only nodes) causing unneccessary confusion.
Maybe someday Storj will add the support, but I’m sure right now they have more important things to do.
As for whether this should be defined a “bug” or “lack of a feature” it does not matter. There is no demand for the feature or fixing of the bug, so it stays at the bottom of the request pile.
Not that I think my ISP supports IPv6, so…
net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6 = 1


How longer are we going to still get justifications such as “customers don’t ask for it” for not have to do something someome doesn’t want to or is not prepared ?
Fixing a problem has nothing to do with what customers want or not. Using customers as a justification in a case like this is more to sound as ‘noble’ justification

It is normally dificult for users ans even some type of developers to understand this diference, but I normally see as a way to hide their lack of knowledge about something they should know better at this stage but simply didn’t take the time to learn.

Customer don’t want it = no problem. This is a business not a church.


Ans it says a lot about those behind it and their ability to resolve business and technical problems.

1 Like

Look, I think it is safe to say that there are “irreconcilable differences” between you and Storj on this topic.
Just let it rest for the time being.