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

161–170 of 353 posts

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#161

Post by vxNsr »

piperswe wrote: post #136
skrause wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

yup, same for my ISP, they just completed a rebrand and finalized a bunch of mergers so maybe they'll finally see this as a cost saving measure and implement it.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#162

Post by krnlpnc »

CharlesW wrote: post #131
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 curre…

HTTP is backwards compatible

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#163

Post by randmeerkat »

oxplot wrote: post #140
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.

> SpaceX'es focus is to scale up

> Removing any unnecessary feature is a must in order to reduce risk.

You can’t scale a space based planetary ISP without IPv6, this isn’t a feature, it’s a requirement.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#164

Post by oxplot »

xxpor wrote: post #153
oxplot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CGNAT itself is a enormous risk. It's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more complex and unstable than v6.

> CGNAT itself is a enormous risk.

How?

IPv6 isn't a substitution for CGNAT, it's an addition to it. You either have to keep CGNAT or replace it with dedicated IPv4 for each customer. Dedicated IPv4 is most likely too costly given the limited availability. SpaceX is also trying to cut cost aggressively.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#165

Post by oxplot »

the_biot wrote: post #152
oxplot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where did you get that information?

From Elon Musk in numerous interviews. Latest of which is with Tim Dodd.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#166

Post by doublepg23 »

staticassertion wrote: post #67

I 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?

There are ways to optimize an attack but pure brute force like IPv4 is impossible.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#167

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

kazen44 wrote: post #143
martinald wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

because maintaining state for GCNAT tables is far more complex then just forwarding packets. routers doing NAT are thus more expensive then those just doing simple forwarding. Also, in some countries ISP's need to map the use of a specific ip address to a specific subscriber for law enforcment purposes. GCNAT is no exception to this and creates a large amount of overhead because the public IPV4 prefix space is shared…

> because maintaining state for GCNAT tables is far more complex then just forwarding packets.

But it’s a solved problem with mature solutions, decades old. Is it really financially expensive?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#168

Post by oxplot »

randmeerkat wrote: post #163
oxplot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> SpaceX'es focus is to scale up > Removing any unnecessary feature is a must in order to reduce risk. You can’t scale a space based planetary ISP without IPv6, this isn’t a feature, it’s a requirement.

IPv6 amounts to a firmware update which the current hardware is and any future hardware will be capable of. The major hurdle in scaling Starlink is fast and cheap deployment of 1000s of satellite hardware. At the moment, the sole focus of SpaceX in relation to Starlink is to get their V2 satellites to orbit in order to keep up with bandwidth demands. V2 requires the Starship system which is yet to make it to orbit.

TL;DR bigger fishes to fry ATM - yes you need IPv6 to scale, no you don't need it right now.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#169

Post by spookthesunset »

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…

Would them using CGNAT suggest they are tunneling your traffic as it goes between your station and the ground station?

I wonder if they’ll go IPv6 once they are doing inter-satellite routing?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#170

Post by CharlesW »

krnlpnc wrote: post #162
CharlesW wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 curre…

HTTP is backwards compatible

It's not. There's a negotiation process, but you can't use HTTP/3 to deliver content to a client that doesn't support it.

"HTTP/3 uses QUIC instead of TCP for the underlying transport protocol. Like HTTP/2, it does not obsolesce previous major versions of the protocol." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

Post reply on HN