40% of Google users now connect via IPv6 • Hacker News Board

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#261

Post by Nextgrid » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 8:46 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #237

kazen44 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re presenting a false dichotomy. The choice for an ISP today is not “v4 or v6”, it’s either “v4 or v4+v6”. A v6 only connection in the US is unusable.

The v4 fallback can operate on slower equipment if needed. The majority of bandwidth-heavy services support IPv6 (and the slowness will encourage outliers to migrate).

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#262

Post by INTPenis » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 8:51 PM UTC

wakeupcall wrote: post #104

My guess is mostly mobile traffic? I run a personal tech website containing OSS projects, and have been supporting v6 for more than a decade. Currently seeing few hundred unique visitors per day. IPv6 has been steady at ~15% of all inbound requests for the past 5 years, with zero signs of increase. Both my own fixed adsl service and a different mobile carrier do not offer v6, so I have to jump through hoops to verify…

Yeah I came here to say this. Mobile carriers in Sweden seem to have much better ipv6 support than regular broadband ISPs.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#263

Post by Kwpolska » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 8:54 PM UTC

0x006A wrote: post #184

Its mostly impossible to run servers only with IPv6 since for some reason Canonical/Ubuntu decided to require IPv4 for snap, after years of not having any issues with IPv6 only deb mirrors. Go is also basically bound to IPv4 since it depends on github to pull packages its time to make hall of shame for software that does not allow developers to build IPv6 only going forward.

Your first point is easily solvable with `sudo apt remove snap`. It also solves a lot more problems and gets rid of broken software.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#264

Post by welterde » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 8:55 PM UTC

kortex wrote: post #234

welterde wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 is perfectly backwards compatible with IPv4 with the IPv4-in-IPv6-address embedding and other technologies. The problem is that IPv4 is not forward-compatible with anything that has a larger address space. Thus a IPv4-only host will never ever be able to communicate with a non-IPv4 host, since there is no way to encode more than 32-bit of information in the IPv4 header. So you will always end up in this situatio…

But why couldn't we just put a middlebox in front of the host which translates a 4-over-6 address to a plain ipv4? The host box still sees only v4 but v6-only devices can still connect to it. Like I could envision a simple router-like device doing this.

That's not the direction that's the problem - like I mentioned (IPv6 is backwards compatible), NAT64 and so forth boxes exist (but still not great since you have to hold state).

But the problem is that the inverse is not possible. How would a IPv4-only box connect to a non-IPv4 box? How do you encode more than 32-bit of information into the 32-bit destination address field of the IPv4 packet?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#265

Post by baybal2 » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 8:57 PM UTC

smcl wrote: post #239

baybal2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge phone network/ISP called Jio there. I read they are using 624 only.

Weird, the stats on the first graph show the 6to4 traffic being extremely minimal

I meant that they use NAT64, and it goes to Google over native v6

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#266

Post by kstrauser » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

Teknoman117 wrote: post #254

kstrauser wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a Sonic customer, and have a fully working IPv6 connection from them.

How? https://help.sonic.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000419168-Fiber-... Gigabit fiber from them explicitly says it isn't supported.

Whoa. I have no idea. I absolutely, 100% certainly, do though. I have Sonic gigabit fiber, and can use IPv6 to connect to remote hosts (and can connect to my LAN from remote hosts on specific ports I have open).

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#267

Post by xxpor » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 9:44 PM UTC

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.

It's a partial substitution. What percent of your traffic is youtube, for example?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#268

Post by noizejoy » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

martinald wrote: post #214

stingraycharles wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software-defined networking is slowly becoming more popular, but it’s always going to be more resource intensive than these enterprise-grade routers that are typically implemented using FPGA / ASICs. Having said that, I’m often equally baffled at just how expensive modern networking hardware is, but as it’s pretty much all of these carrier grade networking solutions being this expensive, I’m assuming it’s somewhat ju…

Probably a bit of a cartel for "enterprise grade" networking equipment, is my guess. Was similar in the late 90s/early 00s for web/database servers.

My (uneducated) guess would be to look at the way patents last too long. So society ends up suffering, rather than benefiting from IP protection.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#269

Post by donkarma » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

virtuallynathan wrote: post #216

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…

They recently added a bunch of IPv6 addresses to their GeoIP file, and announced more via BGP, I suspect its in the works. FWIW, they arent any more specifically Geo located, so this won't fix your issues.

good, what does geo location offer aside privacy invasion?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#270

Post by ta2478367 » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #225

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?

Stuff breaks. I fought this fight a few years back just to educate myself, and the mere presence of IPv6 on the network, DHCPv6 addresses being handed out, AAAA records being returned from the local caching DNS, etc... made all sorts of software loopy. One I remember in particular was that if you hit a default openssh configuration from the local (!) network, even on a link-local address, it would try to do a RDNS lo…

Because its an over-engineered pile of shit. The only thing required was an increase in the address space, but we got IPv6 instead, which everyone sane resists to this day. Defaulting to hex addressing only a sheltered engineer would do.