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

United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#141

Post by RupertHandjob »

novok wrote: post #63
pjc50 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes. Getting up to speed on the new thing is work, and unless it's clear what the benefit is then I'm disinclined to do that work. IP6 requires a bunch of new tooling and configuration, and if running dual stack provides plenty of new opportunities for failure.

In 2021 IP6 is still 'new' to you?

My ISP has offered ipv6 for almost 7 years. When ever I tried to you use ipv6 it was just a miserable shit show. Their support says everything is fine and in the support forums thing work fine for some and for some not so much.

When ever I enabled ipv6 I got 10/10 from test-ipv6.com and randomly few ours later it would go down for no reason. I used few hours to understand wtf was happening. Then I just gave up and disabled ipv6. I got peace of mind and lost nothing. Maybe someday I am bored enough to try again that sorcery and black magic.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#142

Post by Proven »

magila wrote: post #68
notreallyserio wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?" Of course, turning off IPv6 fixed a lot of connectivity issues, at least back in the day. Maybe it's better now, but I see no benefit in re-enabling it. What's the value-add?

The value is that you don't get caught with your pants down when IPv4 addresses get expensive enough to shaping businesses' decisions. It's going to be a lot less stressful to come to grips with IPv6 now rather than waiting until it becomes a critical path dependency of some business goal.

No post body was provided.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#143

Post by usr1106 »

zamadatix wrote: post #5

Before 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" :).

What is the idea of 464XLAT?

We have IoT style devices using AWS. And IPv6 has long not really been available on AWS. Yeah, it has become a bit better the last 3-5 years.

So we have not really worked on IPv6 for our devices either. The kernel would support it, but our user space just does not use it. The typical excuse, someone else hasn't done their homework first...

Our devices work just fine with T-Mobile US SIMs. I assume you were referring to US? So where is the IPv6 only aspect?

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#144

Post by _0w8t »

Dagger2 wrote: post #131
_0w8t wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish v6 just tried to fix things. The problem with v6 was that it also tried to do thing in a right way and broke too much compatibility. And then it turned out what was right in 1995 was no longer so for the last 10 years.

It mostly only broke the things it had to break. v4 isn't forwards compatible to longer address lengths, so the lack of compatibility isn't the fault of any aspect of v6's design.

v6 128-bit address was an attempt to simplify the routing. The was fear that with big routing tables that v4 stated to require 25 years ago the performance would collapse. In practice it never became an issue. Yet with smaller address space, like with just 48 bits, connecting from v6 to v4 address would be possible with much less complex nat.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#145

Post by usr1106 »

kaashif wrote: post #102
scoopertrooper wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some calculations of my own. Assuming a index of size 2^64 and a block size of 256 KB, you could store 6,949,999,424,954 hours of 4k REDCODE36 RAW 4K video @ 120 fps before you ran into problems.

But if proof of space cryptocurrency takes off, who knows how much of the world's disk production it'll use? ZFScoin to the moon! Just kidding, but maybe not.

That's the way it has been in IT for 6 decades. The problem is it's not sustainable. We ruin the planet by inventing ever new ways of wasting resources for new solutions to problems that mankind doensn't even have.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#146

Post by usr1106 »

xvilka wrote: post #121

I wonder why Spain has such a low adoption rate (3.46%) compared to its neighbors. Same with Italy.

I have no answer to that. But I can answer why Finland has a high rate. Mobile connections have IPv6 like in most countries. For fixed ones it's impossible to get for consumer subscriptions.

But here fixed networks are being actively shut down. Mobile connections are cheaper and faster.

(That does not hold for fiber, but fiber is still not widely available. And with the dominance of mobile I am not sure that this will change quickly.)

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#147

Post by stingraycharles »

bombcar wrote: post #133
stingraycharles wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t link-local only applicable to a single switch, rather than a more involved LAN with several subnets and routers and whatnot?

It is - but if you have multiple subnets on your local lan you should have local DNS or similar (or know prefix:1::1 is the router, etc).

But in that case, that is considerably more difficult than just IPv4, as I now need to remember the prefix. Which isn’t stable, as it’s often reassigned by my ISP.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#148

Post by throw0101a »

sliken wrote: post #61
throw0101a wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough? Consider the counter-factual: what if 64 bits ended up being not enough? Given all the effort that needed and still needs to be done to move from IPv4 to IPv6, if we eventually needed to move to IPv7/8 it would even more difficult given how much IP in general has/is pervading civilization. It's better to have…

Heh, I'd argue that ZFS would be better if they went with 64 bits, especially since it's 2^128 blocks, not bytes, or bits. I did the math and it was something like a decade of the worlds production of disks, in a single filesystem. I could somewhat understand if it was a distributed filesystem, but it's not.

> I did the math

So did Jeff Bonwick:

> Thus, fully populating a 128-bit storage pool would, literally, require more energy than boiling the oceans.

* https://web.archive.org/web/20171118074243/https://blogs.ora...

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#149

Post by IshKebab »

mulmen wrote: post #84
VectorLock wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet When you put it like that, it sounds kind of scary.

Why? This is what firewalls are for.

Because NAT is secure by default, whereas IPv6 is insecure by default.

In other words, if you have internet and you're using NAT then unless you have done some complicated stuff (port forwarding) you're probably safe.

If you have internet and you're using IPv6 then unless you have done some complicated stuff (enabling a firewall) then you're probably not safe.

I guess eventually IPv6 enabled routers will come with a firewall enabled by default but let's not hold out breaths!

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#150

Post by throw0101a »

saltharp wrote: post #92
throw0101a wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough? Consider the counter-factual: what if 64 bits ended up being not enough? Given all the effort that needed and still needs to be done to move from IPv4 to IPv6, if we eventually needed to move to IPv7/8 it would even more difficult given how much IP in general has/is pervading civilization. It's better to have…

When was the last time you tried to memorize (or even type out) a ZFS block pointer address though? The ergonomics don't matter for ZFS, and so what's left to consider is address space exhaustion. For IPv6, people memorize/type IP address all the time. So the IPv6 designers needed to balance the address space size with ergonomics - and they did this poorly, imo.

> For IPv6, people memorize/type IP address all the time. So the IPv6 designers needed to balance the address space size with ergonomics - and they did this poorly, imo.

Most people have a hard time with remembering more than a handful of important telephone numbers (15 digits per E.164), so I don't think 64- (36:31:85:fc:bc:64:21:58) or even 48-bit (da:e1:4d:a5:9d:e7) addresses would be any easier.

And if you don't like the current IPv6 addresses, be thankful the IETF didn't go with RFC 1561:

> General purpose CLNP implementations MUST handle NSAP addresses of variable length up to 20 octets, as defined in ISO/IEC 8348 [11]. TUBA implementations, especially routers, MUST accommodate these as well. Thus, for compatibility and interoperability with OSI use of CLNP, the initial octet of the Destination Address is assumed to be an Authority and Format Indicator, as defined in ISO/IEC 8348. NSAP addresses may be between 8 and 20 octets long (inclusive).

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1561.html#section-4...

Post reply on HN