Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IAB Statement on IPv6

iab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#91

Post by the8472 »

cm2187 wrote: post #77
daurnimator wrote: post #2

IMO the major thing holding back IPv6 on the web is amazon. A huge proportion of services are hosted on AWS, and the lack of IPv6 addressing of instances cannot be forgiven.

I'd say ISPs to start with. In the UK, BT still hasn't rolled out IPv6. Neither has vodafone. Also I have servers in colocation with two datacenters, and for both I had to ask to the support to get an IPv6 range. We are very far from IPv6 becoming a standard feature.

That varies strongly by country[0]. My home ISP for example does DS-Lite and last week their AFTR was overloaded. So ipv4 was almost unusable while v6 worked fine. So temporarily I was already living in a post-v4 world.

[0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#92

Post by korethr »

executesorder66 wrote: post #7
ryao wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and github are the two major offenders.

https://ipv6wallofshame.com/ Baidu, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit are also major players who could make a huge difference.

At a cursory glance, it seems that Google or Google-owned sites make up a majority of the IPv6-enabled sites. Seems to me the numbers would be a lot lower without Google's work.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#93

Post by marcosdumay »

Arnt wrote: post #5

I noticed the other day that IPv6 growth is slowing down, as Google measures it. Its access share used to double every ten or eleven months, now it doubles more slowly, and seems likely to reach 20% only in 2017 instead of this year, and if it goes on as in the recent months, 30% in 2018 instead of in 2017. At a guess, many of most competent ISPs have done their thing and now we're seeing the more sluggish middle. Or…

Here at Brazil, I know of no consumer facing ISP that supports IPv6. But we have been busy dismantling a quasi-communist government, so things may change faster in the future (if we are successful in the dismantling).

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#94

Post by mprovost »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #62
ncw33 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much! Just a few bytes for each packet. Running a NAT service requires a big table of all the active connections, ie. it's stateful - IPv6 with no NAT needs no per-connection state in the router so that's a big space-saving.

As I understand it, there have been a few nation-scale Internet outages that have been a result of IPv4 address tables reaching their resource ceiling (not relating to NAT) - another example of how IPv4 is no longer fit for purpose regarding hardware resources.

Those were caused because Cisco by default (optimistically) partitioned a big chunk of the routing table memory for v6 routes. The fix was to reduce the memory usage for v6 and give that memory back for v4 routes. So really it was allocating so much space for v6 before there was any need that caused those outages.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#95

Post by mikecb »

tptacek wrote: post #89
proactivesvcs wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, there have been a few nation-scale Internet outages that have been a result of IPv4 address tables reaching their resource ceiling (not relating to NAT) - another example of how IPv4 is no longer fit for purpose regarding hardware resources.

If 32 bit address tables are reaching capacity, increasing the size of the address space is unlikely to resolve the problem.

Doesn't ipv6 include efficiencies for this, like hierarchical prefixes?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#96

Post by quicksilver03 »

phicoh wrote: post #78
tonfa wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Free still doing 6to4 (which was probably fine at the time) or did they start doing native ipv6?

Free was doing 6rd, which is similar to 6to4 but not quite the same.

I'm on Free and I had to disable IPv6 because one of their routers was dropping about 60% of the IPv6 packets: GitHub, Google, Bitbucket took several minutes to load.

As soon as I switched to IPv4 everything worked fine.

I suppose that nobody at Free is really monitoring their IPv6 network in the same way they do it for IPv4.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#97

Post by tptacek »

mikecb wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 32 bit address tables are reaching capacity, increasing the size of the address space is unlikely to resolve the problem.

Doesn't ipv6 include efficiencies for this, like hierarchical prefixes?

In practical reality, doesn't that just mitigate the strain caused by an explosion in the size of the address tables?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#98

Post by yuvadam »

danyork wrote: post #43
daurnimator wrote: post #2

IMO the major thing holding back IPv6 on the web is amazon. A huge proportion of services are hosted on AWS, and the lack of IPv6 addressing of instances cannot be forgiven.

The good news is that Amazon has been slowly rolling out IPv6 support across various AWS services (ex. S3, CloudFront). Once they support IPv6 on EC2, though, that will be the big breakthrough!

Not to mention Route 53, which can serve AAAA records, but still has no IPv6 nameservers.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#99

Post by mikecb »

tptacek wrote: post #97
mikecb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't ipv6 include efficiencies for this, like hierarchical prefixes?

In practical reality, doesn't that just mitigate the strain caused by an explosion in the size of the address tables?

I guess it depends on how big the efficiency gain is, but afaik it's pretty big.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#100

Post by cjensen »

We have a product that uses ipv6 for inter-server communications. We've since learned that most major corporations routinely disable ipv6 on every computer.

Not helping.

Post reply on HN