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

171–180 of 353 posts

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#171

Post by zamadatix »

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…

I'd be surprised if users ever asked you to do that. The driver is usually about your infrastructure reaching the most clients most efficiently, not about users seeing it's 4 instead of 6 and asking for numbers go up.

If your site is largely centrally hosted and doesn't require many IPs then nobody, including you, is going to care if it's v4 or v6 until ISPs stop providing v4 gateway services in the far far future as whether your site supports IPv4 isn't going to change anything for anyone. Well, unless your site is like the HN crowd where hacking for hacking's sake is the point in which case that's actually odd you haven't received an email.

Google is obviously the exact opposite of this use case hence their interest and monitoring of IPv6 support and the latency impact numbers.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#172

Post by mgbmtl »

TekMol wrote: post #135
ignoramous wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Sooner or later, you will have to support IPv6. May as well slowly start testing bits and pieces, and avoid doing it in a rush later on.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#173

Post by idatum »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #87
stereo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My he.net ipv6 tunnel adds about 2ms of latency on average, which I can totally live with.

Can you use that over a CGNAT?

Most likely you wouldn't with CGNAT, unfortunately, at least I can't see how. They need to ping your IPv4 address to set up.

As an aside, they also want to ping your IPv6 daily (at least in my logs) to keep the tunnel alive; otherwise quite stable.

I'm fortunate to not have to deal with CGNAT. But still waiting for IPv6. A he.net tunnel works for now for what I need: stable IPv6 for SSH tunneling from my IPv6 mobile.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#174

Post by rubatuga »

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…

Many of our customers are on Starlink, and use our service to bypass the CGNAT allowing them to host web servers, SMTP servers, etc. Our service is called Hoppy Network, it provides a unique and publicly accessible IPv4 and IPv6 range over WireGuard.

https://hoppy.network

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#175

Post by doublerabbit »

oxplot wrote: post #168
randmeerkat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

> no you don't need it right now.

Yes we do. IPv4 exhaustion is a thing.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#176

Post by bumblebritches5 »

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…

What's the point of Starlink?

with 4G/5G home internet, there's no real point anymore.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#177

Post by dc-programmer »

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?

On a local link, if you know the ipv6 address of one machine you can guess others by getting their device ID (MAC address) and then modifying the known address. So you can use neighbor discovery to find the other MAC addresses to craft the IP addresses.

I think you can also take advantage of router advertisement or client solicitations somehow but I’m not familiar with the details (i.e. passive listening on multicast vis a vis broadcast)

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#178

Post by kazen44 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #167
kazen44 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

compared to rolling out IPv6? definitely, especially on the longer term.

For instance, most Core/Edge routers (my experience is mainly with juniper MX series, but i assume the model is roughly the same for other vendors), you need specific licenses or interface card's to do stateful services like NAT.

Compared to doing IPv6, which is "just forwarding packets" and doesn't require the hardware to track state in nearly the same manner.

Most serious core/edge hardware vendors also do not put IPv6 behind licenses compared to CGNAT and other NAT-like features, because packet based forwarding is the most basic functionality a router should provide.

Routers which are able to do less state, also are frequently far less expensive.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#179

Post by spookthesunset »

oxplot wrote: post #164
xxpor wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True. As an ISP you are gonna need an IPv4 stack no matter what. Even if that stack is CGNAT'd up the ass. I can't even ping news.ycombinator.com or amazon.com with IPv6.

That is the biggest problem with IPv6. Who is gonna be the first ISP to shut off their IPv4 stack? There is always gonna be some random website that is IPv4.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#180

Post by tgflynn »

oxplot wrote: post #168
randmeerkat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

I doubt there's much overlap between the people working on IPv6 and those working on getting Starship off the ground.
Post reply on HN