I wonder why Spain has such a low adoption rate (3.46%) compared to its neighbors. Same with Italy.
United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
121–130 of 164 posts
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every consumer router/firewall drops incoming packets by default, why would this be different for ipv6?
> Every consumer router/firewall drops incoming packets by default, why would this be different for ipv6? Sadly, this is very far from the truth. Most routers do not filter IPv6 by default, mainly because IPv6's design assumes a per-device firewall. This means that literally you need to ensure that every device supports a firewall or otherwise operates in such a way that it is safe for public access.
> Most routers do not filter IPv6 by default.
This isn't my experience. If you are correct however, that is a failure of the ISP/CPE provider, not a flaw of IPv6.
> mainly because IPv6's design assumes a per-device firewall
I don't see a single mention of firewalls in the RFC[1]. But then neither did the ipv4 spec. Why would we suddenly stop using firewalls though? They have been standard on networks for decades.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#123Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#124Reliance Jio is/was a major IPv6 adoption driver in India[1]
It was very interesting,on, how many online (web?) services actually supported end-end ipv6 like YouTube or Facebook etc , right when they started . (~2015/2016) [1]https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-10...
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every consumer router/firewall drops incoming packets by default, why would this be different for ipv6? Sadly, this is very far from the truth. Most routers do not filter IPv6 by default, mainly because IPv6's design assumes a per-device firewall. This means that literally you need to ensure that every device supports a firewall or otherwise operates in such a way that it is safe for public access.
> Most routers do not filter IPv6 by default. This isn't my experience. If you are correct however, that is a failure of the ISP/CPE provider, not a flaw of IPv6. > mainly because IPv6's design assumes a per-device firewall I don't see a single mention of firewalls in the RFC[1]. But then neither did the ipv4 spec. Why would we suddenly stop using firewalls though? They have been standard on networks for decades. 1.…
> This isn't my experience. If you are correct however, that is a failure of the ISP/CPE provider, not a flaw of IPv6.
First, I'm excluding enterprise firewall here.
I've verified this with multiple non-CPE routers, and except for the router itself (for obvious reasons), no, IPv6 traffic isn't really filtered. The "firewall" is laughable on some routers (including some assuming /64 filters which isn't necessarily true for some servers like OVH's). The only non-enterprise one that's working as much as an IPv4 system is Asus'.
Some routers tries to filter out DoS attacks. Those are rather confusingly called a "Firewall", but it's not really a controllable firewall per se, allowing "normal" but otherwise a malicious-if-DPIed traffic. A tell-tale sign that this is the "firewall" you have is that you cannot set IPv6 whitelists on your router.
> I don't see a single mention of firewalls in the RFC[1]. But then neither did the ipv4 spec. Why would we suddenly stop using firewalls though? They have been standard on networks for decades.
The RFC? Yeah, both IPv6 and IPv4 have evolved in the years so that there's multiple RFCs about them. For example, IPv4 don't promote ICMP firewalls but details what ICMP messages must you allow if you deploy one (unless you wholesale block that IP). IPv6 instead never allows you to block any ICMP messages except if you wholesale block an IPv6 address.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#126This map categorizes Mexico as Central America. How does anyone get this wrong in 2021?
The definition comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_M49 region code 013.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's latency impact (vs v4) not just latency. -10 would mean IPv6 connections typically had better latency than IPv4 connections. This was more an concern during the early days of IPv6 deployment.
Exactly, but we are not in the early days anymore. So how is, in today's world, v6 "10ms faster" than v4? ISPs didn't magically create v6-only exchanges that happen to be in a more direct path to Google.
It is likely that the CGNATs are slower when doing translation to IPv4 rather than just passing (with some filtering) IPv6.
10ms does seem like a lot though. Maybe a remote lookup? Or something to do with prefering IPv6 with a small delay (happy eyeballs related?)
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only when you're dependent on NAT for security. NAT isn't intended to be a security tool, and is pretty bad at mitigating against attacks that aren't just "log into this device directly." As others have said, a robust firewall and some good access controls and you'll be fine.
"anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet" doesn't sound much like robust access controls. I wouldn't trust the horrible default passwords and lax security built into most devices for home use to be exposed directly to the Internet even with a firewall.
Robust access controls would be things like certificate auth, MFA is cool, fail2ban is good, maybe throw in some roles there; whatever floats your boat. So yeah, your security model should involve not using default passwords and not using devices that have unchangeable default passwords.
Again, people are depending on something that isn't really designed to provide security to provide security. Devices that have horrible default passwords aren't secure in any environment. We need to a) do better in picking what we run on our networks and b) hold manufacturers accountable for setting sane defaults.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#129Before everyone laments their ISP is part of the slow half remember the majority of this migration is still driven by the switch to users browsing on mobile device networks rather than a traditional desktop on a hardline. E.g. T-Mobile is IPv6 only for a number of years now, using 464XLAT to let customers access IPv4 only services. Also I'll throw in the standard "HN is still v4 only" :).
No post body was provided.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#130Does it still count if it's Christmas? https://images2.imgbox.com/3a/5b/f3pnu4aG_o.png
It's definitely going to drop back below 50% over the next week or two, although I suspect the base level will go over 50% at some point this year.