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

40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 353 posts

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#131

Post by CharlesW »

krnlpnc wrote: post #38

“In December 1998, IPv6 became a Draft Standard for the IETF,[2] which subsequently ratified it as an Internet Standard on 14 July 2017.” 40% adoption after 25 years? Really highlights how terrible IPv6 is in terms of backwards compatibility. What we needed was an internet protocol with the benefits of IPv6 that runs as an extension to the IPv4 stack. The current approach to duplicate everything into IPv6 is wasteful…

> What we needed was an internet protocol with the benefits of IPv6 that runs as an extension to the IPv4 stack.

My understanding is that the reason it's a new version is so existing IPv4 infrastructure would not need to be changed. This "ships in the night" approach has pros and cons, of course, but I'm personally happy to give folks who thought about this problem for many years the benefit of the doubt.

> The current approach to duplicate everything into IPv6 is wasteful and time consuming, proven by the extremely slow adoption rate.

The beauty of the IPv6 approach is that it doesn’t matter how long it takes.

I don't understand how it's "wasteful". Is it wasteful to support 3 versions of HTTP?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#132

Post by collsni »

withinboredom wrote: post #29
ngetchell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand the sentiment, NAT does so much to protect most users, it should be considered a security feature.

NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer routers generally set up NAT, I can see why you'd say that (despite there being standard ways to forward ports without any user intervention such as uPnP). There's nothing "secure" about NAT.

I think the argument is about the address origin being overwritten vs forwarded to the destination.

Is about device tracking and privacy

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#133

Post by collsni »

vmoore wrote: post #2

Anyone 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?

Yes at my router for privacy. Not nat means no source device obfuscation.

No source device obfuscation equals device tracking

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#134

Post by martinald »

mordae wrote: post #50
NelsonMinar wrote: post #35

I 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…

A local ISP told me that they want to get into IPv6 as soon as possible. NATs are getting costly and moving just YouTube traffic to IPv6 would actually help a lot. The problem is with end user devices that do not use a stable DUID and when the client hits the reset button, it changes. We are probably going to work around this by responding from the closest hop and taking the MAC into account.

Why are NATs getting costly? Don't quite understand.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#135

Post by TekMol »

ignoramous wrote: post #56
TekMol wrote: post #41

My website has a few hundred thousand users. My development is completely user driven. I get hundreds of feature requests and other emails regarding my site per month. So far, not a single user mentioned IPv6. So I never added an AAAA record. The codebase has grown for over 10 years now. God knows what subtle breakages would happen when IPv6 requests come in. I wonder if I ever will add IPv6 or just leave the site ru…

> So I never added an AAAA record. IPv4 servers are reachable by IPv6-only clients. ipv6test.google.com famously has only an A (IPv4) record for a reason. > God knows what subtle breakages would happen when IPv6 requests come in. Unless your product deals with the nitty gritty of the networking stack itself, pretty sure everything continues to hum along just fine, if the basics are covered.

    pretty sure everything continues
    to hum along just fine
Haha. Wishful thinking.

Have you ever worked with a live system that grew for 10 years?

There could be tons of IP specific things in there. To enforce rate limits. For security. To do statistics. To do A/B tests...

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#136

Post by piperswe »

skrause wrote: post #90
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #13

I'm curious how much of this is mobile vs desktop. My assumption is that a much larger percentage of the traffic on mobile is ipv6.

In Germany, where the Google statistics show 64% IPv6 adoption, mobile carriers were actually the last to support IPv6, but even the last mobile carrier enabled it around a year ago. Now it's mostly businesses that are still not using IPv6.

Over here in America T-Mobile has been IPv6-only with NAT64/464XLAT since the early-mid 2010s.[1] My local cable internet company still doesn't support IPv6 in 2022!

[1]: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas...

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#137

Post by roamerz »

spystath wrote: post #117
oldjavacoder wrote: post #107

None of the computers I own personally use IPv6. IPv6 is a bad idea. IPv6 is a straight connection from the Internet through everything in the network, right to the individual machine. Give my IPv4 and NAT or turn the Internet off.

I know it's been repeated a million times by now, but NAT is not a replacement for a firewall. Most residential routers are deny in by default so you get zero incoming connections from the internet unless you open the relevant ports, exactly as with NAT.

NAT is id10t proof though. It takes a concerted effort to set a static internal IP then NAT traffic to it and then allow that traffic through the firewall. The other advantage is that it obfuscates the internal addresses. IPV6 is is unnecessarily complex for what it solves. How hard would it have been to just add an additional octet? Pretty sure a large number of those that embrace it just love the opportunity to change something for the sake of change or their boss said do it. I’ll be sticking with IP4 as long as I can or until there is an actual benefit to IP6.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#138

Post by zauguin »

skrause wrote: post #90
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #13

I'm curious how much of this is mobile vs desktop. My assumption is that a much larger percentage of the traffic on mobile is ipv6.

In Germany, where the Google statistics show 64% IPv6 adoption, mobile carriers were actually the last to support IPv6, but even the last mobile carrier enabled it around a year ago. Now it's mostly businesses that are still not using IPv6.

All the carriers here enabled it for their direct customers, but many resellers still only provide IPv4 connectivity (with CGNAT).

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#139

Post by Sesse__ »

oldjavacoder wrote: post #123
jlouis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It rotates about once a day in most operating systems. Called ipv6 privacy extensions. This is of course defeatable, but it provides a nice black hole for a device. It moves on and you can't connect to it anymore.

"This is of course defeatable" Yes, which is why I don't use IPv6. https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/31/defeating-ipv6-prefix-rota...

You are mixing up IPv6 prefix rotation and IPv6 privacy extensions, and you don't seem to take into account that IPv4 from most ISPs is much worse (typically, you get an IPv4 address from your ISP via DHCP and keep it nearly forever, nothing to defeat).

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#140

Post by oxplot »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #35

I 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…

All your criticism is valid in the long run but right now, SpaceX'es focus is to scale up, focus on usability for majority of its customers and become profitable. Removing any unnecessary feature is a must in order to reduce risk.
Post reply on HN