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

Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

ripe76.ripe.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#41

Post by scrollaway »

lokedhs wrote: post #39

Knowing what I know about how corporations are run (which is nothing more than anyone else who has worked for multiple large organisations) the ISPs are dragging their feet on IPv6 because they can get away with it and it saves them money. I switched ISPs for my fibre connection because my previous one had an absolutely terrible IPv6 implementation. I made sure to let them know why they lost me as a customer, but it'…

None of this explains why the growth suddenly slowed down.

My best theory is it has to do with adoption of mobile ISPs.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#42

Post by ahbs66 »

lmm wrote: post #19
toyg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little ne…

> Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages? > The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through h…

>When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages?

Gamers don't need high speed or thousands of services and telly channels, just good ping

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#43

Post by stephengillie »

bogomipz wrote: post #29
ahbs66 wrote: post #3

I don't find it surprising that they can't find a correlation between GDP/growing user base/IPv4 stress and IPv6 deployment. IPv6 deployment is a matter of politics. It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc. That's what decides whether they put a CGNAT in place, whether the…

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite…

>Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative?

Unfortunately, this is true for at least one major ISP in the USA. IPv6 support is seen as a low priority internally, as they work to merely keep their devices online.

One huge secret about Juniper devices is that the hardware is remarkably unreliable. At one company, a partial Juniper SSG failure prevented a failover to good hardware. At another, we so many Juniper SRX RMAs that we had a full time network engineer handling the RMA paperwork. (Admittedly, they said we were their biggest client, and had a bigger implementation than Juniper's own network lab.) They have a bad habit of failing on reboot - one was operating fine, we reboot it and it reports errors. This happened repeatedly in several data centers - at one point we had 1/6 of our data centers non-redundant while we waited for RMA shipping.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#44

Post by jwhite »

daurnimator wrote: post #40
bogomipz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" It depends on the opinions of the network personnel, on the hardware they have in their core network, on the hardware their customers have (CPEs), on the support contracts they have, etc." Are you saying there are network engineers/management at ISPs who don't believe IPv6 is an imperative? As someone who in a former life worked inside large ISPs on the networking side I can tell you that that view would be quite…

I've heard that a lot of ISPs in Australia are stuck on IPv4 as their whole billing systems (written in early 2000s) use IPv4 addresses for everything. Including techniques like mapping an array of size 2^32 (entirely possible with virtual addresses) to keep counters for each user. It would be a complete rewrite of their billing systems to work with IPv6, and they no longer have many/any programmers on staff.

Most residential customers don't have static IP addresses -- how does that work when a customer's IPv4 address changes?

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#45

Post by ec109685 »

lmm wrote: post #19
toyg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through http these days (because proxies are mandatory, again for security), so there is little ne…

> Gaming is hardly a major driver of infrastructure choices, with all due respect. When it comes to consumer ISPs, who are the people paying for the high-end packages? > The issue is that most businesses are now so well-acquainted with NAT-ting, they don't really care for IP addresses. In fact, the more opaque your network topology is to the outside, the better from a security point of view. Every app works through h…

There are millions of private ipv4 addresses available. Can you talk about how subnet reuse becomes a problem?

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#46

Post by simias »

pietroglyph wrote: post #18

See slide 33, "The Changing Internet", for the most interesting insight (IMO). It basically said that when IPv6 was developed, IPs were still pretty good identifiers (it was important everyone had their own), but that now it's not so important that everyone has their own, so there's not much incentive to change.

Isn't it a self-fulfilling prophecy though? Dynamic IPs and widespread NAT'ing made IP addresses borderline useless to identify endpoints. If everybody had a static /48 IPv6 in the 90's and early 2000's maybe things would have gone in a different direction.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#48

Post by Symbiote »

ahbs66 wrote: post #5
ktpsns wrote: post #4

Maybe still ISPs suffer poor field reports. I was client at "Kabel Deutschland, Germany" and they offer native IPv6 for their customers, with "Dual stack lite" as the routing option to reach the IPv4 world. It performed poorly for me, perhaps due to bad load balancing of the IPv4-gateways. I switched to a buisness plan (+10EUR/month) of the same ISP and now have an own static IPv4 adress and not even native access to…

It's normal, no? They deploy IPv6 because they don't have enough IPv4 addresses. And since most servers in the world are not IPv6 ready and will never be for a long time, if you want to reach an IPv4 server you have to go through their CGNAT which may have a piss-poor performance. I really wish RIPE could force ISPs to release the addresses they don't need :(

12% of all web servers have IPv6, including most of the largest sites.

https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-ipv6/all/all

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#49

Post by originalsimba »

The author used blue for india and some orange-ish gold color for USA on purpose, then asks "Can you guess which is the largest?) to trick the readers into thinking the largest slice in the pie chart of adoption was the USA because of course we're all racists who think our country is the only one in the world. In the words of Randall from Clerks "I didn't appreciate your ruse."

I stopped scanning the pdf there.

IPv6 adoption is up to ISPs. If the users don't have IPv6 at home then it may as well not exist yet. Consumers have to replace their obsolete routers. Why should they when IPv6 isn't required and their router works just fine? ISPs have to upgrade their extroadinarily expensive infrastructures. Why should they when IPv6 isn't required, so on and so forth.

I've spoken to various experts about this over the years and the results in the PDF are exactly what they predicted. Partial adoption has relieved the pressure from the immediate crisis of IPv4 exhaustion. Now we see people saving their money because shelter and food is (still) more important than the internet.

Re: Is IPv6 only for the Rich? [pdf]

#50

Post by tzahola »

zlynx wrote: post #32
tzahola wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just redirect your A record to youdonthaveipv6.com

If you have dual stack, any A record will get used some of the time. It's part of Happy Eyeballs. I suppose that you could add a long artificial delay to the IPv4 service.

Depends on your browser. For example, Safari will always prefer AAAA over A.
Post reply on HN