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

Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

pc.nanog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#61

Post by Eech0Shu »

ec109685 wrote: post #9
signa11 wrote: post #4

geoff-huston from apnic, has this set : https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/9-2018-05-17-ipv6-reas... describing world-wide ipv6 deployment, and the conclusion there seems to be that v6 deployment is actually slowing down, and the conclusion seems to be that no one knows why...

Despite his conclusion, he likely answers it here: • The Client / Server CDN-centric Internet does not require each endpoint to have a globally unique permanent address • Addresses are increasingly being used in the role of ephemeral session tokens, not as persistent endpoint identifiers If you have to support ipv4 anyway and the benefit of ipv6 for your services is not high enough, why bother?

That only applies if you have a very myopic view on what the internet does. Sure, CDN traffic may dominate by volume but it is far from the only traffic on the internet. P2P traffic is still significant.

web ⊂ internet

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#62

Post by Eech0Shu »

virtuallynathan wrote: post #57
Eech0Shu wrote: post #32

Sadly the "happy eyeballs" algorithm obscures IPv6 problems. For example some subnets of amazon cloudfront are v4-reachable from my ISP while being v6-unreachable. But others are v6-reachable. When a DNS name points to a mix of v4 and v6 addresses nobody notices the failure because browsers are quick to fall back to v4 and thus the issue never gets reported. The other problem is that such issues are difficult to repo…

Do you have examples of these subnets? ping me @ nahtnow at amazon dot com.

Not at a location where I can check with my home ISP right now. But last time I checked a few days ago it affected some of the AAAA records that docs.rust-lang.org was pointing to. The affected ISP is deutsche telekom.

I sent an email to the contact listed in the whois database but didn't get any reply.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#63

Post by Siecje »

ancarda wrote: post #52
ajdlinux wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's IPv6 statistics ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... ) show that the US is ahead of literally every other country in the world, so I think it's fair to say US ISPs aren't doing too badly.

Belgium (50.02%) is ahead of the USA (37.19%) on that chart, although you may have missed that as it's quite a small country. Click "Europe" to zoom in a bit. Alternative data from Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country -- is quite a bit different but shows Belgium (50.45%) and India (50.27%) are both slightly ahead the US (49.28%). It's very hard to measure IPv6 adoption. I would personally go w…

Why is adoption a triangle wave pattern?

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#64

Post by gmuslera »

signa11 wrote: post #4

geoff-huston from apnic, has this set : https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/9-2018-05-17-ipv6-reas... describing world-wide ipv6 deployment, and the conclusion there seems to be that v6 deployment is actually slowing down, and the conclusion seems to be that no one knows why...

The low hanging fruits are all taken, the higher ones are harder to reach. But what makes an ISP/country harder to reach is not just a couple of variables.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#65

Post by neojima »

ajdlinux wrote: post #50
metafunctor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but anything in the US hasn't really been in the forefront of IPv6 adoption.

Google's IPv6 statistics ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... ) show that the US is ahead of literally every other country in the world, so I think it's fair to say US ISPs aren't doing too badly.

As mentioned/hinted by ancarda:

a) You missed Belgium. (Common oversight, due to the size on the map.)

b) Google's stats have something of a US-centric bias; https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ is a little less biased (which also shows Belgium and India in the lead).

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#66

Post by neojima »

singularity2001 wrote: post #12

Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.

> With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime?

In theory, yes; in practice, most ISPs will give you a new prefix via DHCPv6-PD anytime your DUID changes (plus sometimes when it doesn't!).

Your web browser is more liable to erode your privacy than IPv6 is (any more than IPv4, anyway).

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#67

Post by tjoff »

claudex wrote: post #14
singularity2001 wrote: post #12

Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.

Some ISP provide a different IPv6 at each connection (to sell static IPv6 at higher price). Other ISP provide a /56, which means, you can shuffle on a lot of /64 on your own. Morevover, there is the privacy extension for IPv6 that change the local part of the IPv6 at regular interval to avoid tracing.

I wouldn't be surprised if it will be trivial to look at a certain IP and query how large pool that particular ISP are allocating for each user.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#68

Post by ajdlinux »

ancarda wrote: post #52
ajdlinux wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's IPv6 statistics ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... ) show that the US is ahead of literally every other country in the world, so I think it's fair to say US ISPs aren't doing too badly.

Belgium (50.02%) is ahead of the USA (37.19%) on that chart, although you may have missed that as it's quite a small country. Click "Europe" to zoom in a bit. Alternative data from Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country -- is quite a bit different but shows Belgium (50.45%) and India (50.27%) are both slightly ahead the US (49.28%). It's very hard to measure IPv6 adoption. I would personally go w…

Ah, I did indeed miss Belgium. Surprising they don't have a table.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#69

Post by neojima »

alex_duf wrote: post #25
ohazi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do if your cellular provider goes IPv6-only, but your home ISP will only give you a v4 address?

I don't think your cellular provider would stop you from accessing ipv4 addresses, it just starts the first hop on ipv6, then tunnels it for you to wherever you're trying to reach. The ultimate goal being decommissioning the tunnel once the rest of the world is ready (few decades obviously)

a) It's a translator, not a tunnel.

b) You're ultimately still right that it enables connectivity to IPv4-only resources, but depending on the IPv6 client device, you may NEED to use a DNS 'A' record to get the traffic to use NAT64/DNS64, rather than trying to connect to a bare IPv4 address.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#70

Post by ancarda »

Siecje wrote: post #63
ancarda wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belgium (50.02%) is ahead of the USA (37.19%) on that chart, although you may have missed that as it's quite a small country. Click "Europe" to zoom in a bit. Alternative data from Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country -- is quite a bit different but shows Belgium (50.45%) and India (50.27%) are both slightly ahead the US (49.28%). It's very hard to measure IPv6 adoption. I would personally go w…

Why is adoption a triangle wave pattern?

The charts graph IPv6 traffic, so it also represents a lot of human behavior. What you're seeing here is actually IPv6 being about ~4% higher on weekends compared to week-days. Looking at last week's data:

    June 16th (Sat): 23.91%
    June 17th (Sun): 23.14%
    June 18th (Mon): 20.10%
This low trend continues until:

    June 21 (Thu): 20.27%
    June 22 (Fri): 21.30%
    June 23 (Sat): 23.73%
    June 24 (Sun): 23.01%
If I had to guess why it's lowest on Mondays, it's because more people are in the office. Enterprise networks tend to have less IPv6 adoption; they are larger, more complex, and often have security considerations like ensuring IPv6 support doesn't interfere with firewall or anti-fraud systems.

Home users tend to get IPv6 because their ISP's router got an update; it's largely invisible, so IPv6 traffic is higher on weekends, when fewer people are at work.

Edit: Also, I forgot to mention, this pattern breaks quite a bit for the holidays. Look at the data around December 25; you'll see lots of bumps, but it doesn't have that weekly crash happening on Monday.

Post reply on HN