At waipu.tv (Video streaming) we have 64% of users connected via IPv6. Compared to 2021 adoption has stalled. 2020 was 56%. waipu.tv is germany-only traffic.
40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
61–70 of 353 posts
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a raspberry pi, set up two vlans, run wireguard, and send 100% of your uplink traffic to a remote vpn endpoint. This gets you off their IP, and also has the added benefit of not letting them analyze your traffic.
And adds 20ms+ latency, another complex point of failure, and potential problems depending on the reputation of the IP address block of wherever you're hosting the endpoint. I've used VPNs to smooth over various Starlink problems since I got the service and it helps but it's not a great solution.
My he.net ipv6 tunnel adds about 2ms of latency on average, which I can totally live with.
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume for mobile operators there are advantages for location roaming. I'm not sure when you change cells if IP stays the same, but must be a routing nightmare.
Ooooh, this is actually fun. Your IP does not change, even when switching from LTE, 3G, 4G and 5G. There's an excellent post in the old Sprint forums where a company network engineer explains how it works. I can't find it though, but it's pretty wild.
In brief, it is because internet connectivity on most cellular networks goes through single gateways and devices are effectively "tunnelling" to those gateways. As long as the tunnel stays up and the mobile device is still identifiable on the RAN then the IP address assigned from the internet gateway doesn't need to change.
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#64Anyone go out of their way to disable IPV6 on all their systems, even at the hardware level, like on routers etc? What's a good reason to avoid IPV6?
Ubiquity has several gateway products that have no hardware acceleration for IPv6.
It's not a _good_ reason, Ubiquity should've included IPv6 support from the start with the price they're asking, but it's a reason.
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#65At waipu.tv (Video streaming) we have 64% of users connected via IPv6. Compared to 2021 adoption has stalled. 2020 was 56%. waipu.tv is germany-only traffic.
Here the link from our Prometheus showing the data for 2020, 2021 and 2022: https://twitter.com/waipuTech/status/1543593614411964416?t=-...
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#66I sure wish Starlink supported IPv6. They're a brand new ISP planning for millions of customers and decided from the start they couldn't get enough IPv4 addresses for everyone. Fair enough! But we're stuck with Carrier Grade NAT and it is a drag. On Starlink it's impossible to host a server socket directly, which makes any peer to peer networking a PITA. Geocoding IP addresses doesn't work so I have to bend over back…
Get a raspberry pi, set up two vlans, run wireguard, and send 100% of your uplink traffic to a remote vpn endpoint. This gets you off their IP, and also has the added benefit of not letting them analyze your traffic.
Oddly the hardest part of this right now is getting your hands on a raspberry pi!
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#67I realize there are a million ways to leak addresses, but in theory is a private ipv6 space brute forceable? ie: I have every service listen on a port on some IP, they all discover each other through some specific channel (like dns). Assuming the attacker doesn't have access to that channel, they would have to start scanning every ip to try to discover services, yeah?
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#68Anyone go out of their way to disable IPV6 on all their systems, even at the hardware level, like on routers etc? What's a good reason to avoid IPV6?
I do. I don't know why, but when debugging some network issues I discovered just shutting IPv6 down fixed the issue. Could it have been a buggy implementation on a single device on the network messing everything up? Maybe. But since I have no real benefit for IPv6, it was trivial to turn off. It also lets me wait until other people (hopefully) build better privacy systems.
IPv6 has had privacy built in for years now, on every OS available. Your inbound address will remain static and possible MAC address derived, but unless you're hosting anything on it (or disabled your firewall) your network traffic will be perfectly private.
I've noticed several websites where IPv6 has lower latency than IPv4. The ease of accessing different VMs on cloud providers that will hand out a single IPv4 address, though alternatives like Betternet/Tailscale/Tor will also work around that problem.
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#69Can anyone explain why the trend is cyclical with a period of a week?
The peaks are on Saturdays so my guess is residential ISPs/personal traffic peaking on weekends while the mon-fri 9-5 are on older legacy IPv4 systems. But that's just a guess as the reason why.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
With IPv6 each device getting a unique IP is not a bug but a feature -- what will probably happen is that your ISP will lend out a /64 range to you, which your devices will use to assign a unique IP to themselves. This completely removes the need for NAT (also, keep in mind that a NAT is not a firewall or a security feature). BTW, dynamic IP rotation was never a guarantee and is only used because the pool of IPs were…
While I understand the sentiment, NAT does so much to protect most users, it should be considered a security feature.
Every ISP I know has their routers set to block incoming traffic by default. With most consumer router SIP ALG being defeated easily (NAT slipstreaming attacks etc) I'd argue that NAT is actually worse for security than just a simple firewall.