Enabling IPv6 + IPv4 dualstack for a status page

[Erik Nygren]

Is there a way to dual-stack a status page (ie, enable it for IPv6 as well as IPv4) for a custom status page (eg, status.example.com)?

Or is there any plans to dual-stack all status pages by default?

Having resources available via IPv6 is critical for many companies, both to reliably reach users who have IPv6-mostly connectivity as well as to meet purchasing requirements that mandate IPv6 support.

For example, US Government OMB mandate M-21-07 lays out a transition for IPv6-only for US government agencies:

https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/node-175/m-21-07.pdf

Having api.statuspage.io available via IPv6 would also be worthwhile for services deploying in IPv6-mostly cloud environments.

[Jesse Klein]

Hi Erik,

This is Jesse from the Statuspage support team. Welcome to the community and thanks for the question. We don't have ipv6 support at this time. There is a feature request open internally so I will add this community post to the request. It is currently in a gathering interest status so there are no plans for adding it to the roadmap but with more desire, this could change. Thanks again for reaching out!

Regards,
Jesse

[Christian I_ Nilsson]

A bit of background RFC2460 was pusblished in December of 1998 with the passage "This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng."

RFC8200 obsoletes RFC2460, and was published in July 2017 (that is over 7 years ago) and the notable part here is that the "Next Generation" is gone.
Which in principle makes it current Gen.

Are you not supporting current gen of internet? As an example, if we don't have to use current standards, how come you are even using https? when http should be just fine /s

So what does the lack of IPv6 mean in practice?
Well for some users they cant reach the status page, or they are having great issues trying to connect. Isn't the point of a status page to have it available for everyone and always?

[Jesse Klein]

Hi Christian,

Welcome to the community! I can respect the desire to have an IPv6 path for Statuspage and I'd be happy to share this feedback with the product team. I think there's an argument to be made for having it and I suspect that is an eventual goal for the team.

Also, while RFC is a set of guidelines, standards, and best practices, it doesn't necessarily mean it's dogma. According to Google's stats, a little less than half of users access Google through IPv6: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption

That doesn't even mean it's being exclusively used. While the RFC says IPv6 is current gen at this point, IPv4 is still dominant in usage.

In the end, I agree that this is something Statuspage should have so we don't run into any issues with user connectivity but I hope you can understand why this isn't being prioritized at this time. I'll still add your notes to the feature request we have so the team can see it! Thanks again for your time!

Regards,
Jesse

[Christian I_ Nilsson]

RFC is standards and for the most part even hard requirements. (so yes it is dogma)

Most networks, even those with IPv6 also have IPv4 as dual stack or over NAT64, but that comes with a penalty in terms of delay. For statuspage.io this isn't really an issue.

However what is an issue is for networks (or in some cases even countries) with non working IPv4 connectivity.
I will assume you are in the U.S. where there is an ok allocation of IPv4, for me in Scandinavia we also have plenty. For India however, there is at some ISPs millions of users behind one /24 IPv4 NAT.
They don't have reliable internet over IPv4, and in many cases even unusable.
What are you suggesting that these users, and others like them do?

One final point where all users would benefit is from the redundancy of being available over both, if, for some reason, IPv4 routing or peering would fail, it might still work on v6, and also the other way around, providing a redundant path for the service itself.

[Jesse Klein]

Hi Christian,

I think my point is that while it's written in an RFC, it doesn't necessarily mean it's followed, which is why we haven't seen 100% adoption of IPv6.

But as I mentioned, I agree with you that this would be good for everyone. I have the notes added to the ticket we have open with the product team. The feature request Jira for Statuspage is internal to the team but rest assured, we have it in place. I am also flagging it to be reviewed again so the team can take another look into prioritization. If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Regards,
Jesse