IAB Statement on IPv6 • Hacker News Board

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#101

Post by danudey » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

cjensen wrote: post #100

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.

Heard a "funny" story about Facebook switching over to pure IPv6 and their issues dealing with largely untested IPv6 implementations. For example, switches which, when presented with an IPv6 BGP route while they don't have IPv6 configured, crash. Apparently they took down an entire data centre full of rack switches finding that out.

My second-favorite problem, after that was solved, was developers constantly using IPv4-only code. Their eventual solution was to just disable IPv4 entirely so that anyone committing IPv4-only code was committing broken code.

It's amazing how much work it takes to bring people into the future.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#102

Post by danudey » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #26

AndrewDucker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon seem to be slowly getting there: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/10/ipv6-supp...

Wow, how did I miss this, CloudFront getting IPv6 support is huge!

They also support HTTP/2 now, which is pretty sweet.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#103

Post by takeda » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC

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…

From this: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html doesn't look like it is slowing down, it's not exponential though, but was it really? It's much easier to double up when number of users is low.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#104

Post by Keverw » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

I hope we don't have IPv6 only protocols and sites anytime soon. My cable company still is not supporting IPv6... It seems like something a major American ISP would of done by now.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#105

Post by virtuallynathan » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

Keverw wrote: post #104

I hope we don't have IPv6 only protocols and sites anytime soon. My cable company still is not supporting IPv6... It seems like something a major American ISP would of done by now.

Which one?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#106

Post by virtuallynathan » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

yuvadam wrote: post #98

danyork wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It should now: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/10/amazon-ro...

ns-1887.awsdns-43.co.uk. 60 IN AAAA 2600:9000:5307:5f00::1

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#107

Post by tjohns » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:45 PM UTC

Keverw wrote: post #104

I hope we don't have IPv6 only protocols and sites anytime soon. My cable company still is not supporting IPv6... It seems like something a major American ISP would of done by now.

On the contrary, having IPv6 only sites and protocols would greatly help adoption.

One of the problems is that a lot of companies think that IPv4 is good enough, since there's no discernable difference to end users right now. Every IPv6 site is also accessible over IPv4, and the community is already heavily invested in engineering around the shortcomings otherwise created by NAT on IPv4.

Coupled with the additional cost and security considerations that have to go into an IPv6 deployment, we've got a good recipe for encouraging both ISPs and corporate providers to stay on IPv4 for as long as possible. (If we're unlucky, we might even see ISPs roll out carrier grade NAT instead of upgrading.)

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#108

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:45 PM UTC

Keverw wrote: post #104

I hope we don't have IPv6 only protocols and sites anytime soon. My cable company still is not supporting IPv6... It seems like something a major American ISP would of done by now.

[deleted]

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#109

Post by vacri » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 8:58 PM UTC

korethr wrote: post #92

executesorder66 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The list also has a ton less green when you consider that most of the sites are just the google search page with different TLDs.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#110

Post by djhworld » Tue, Nov 08, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

I'm wondering what will happen when ISPs start doling out IPv6 addresses, will every customer get a unique, static IPv6 address?

Right now my ISP (BT) gives you an IPv4 address, but it's dynamic. They charge extra for a static IP