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

271–280 of 353 posts

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#271

Post by est31 »

kortilla wrote: post #258
est31 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more traffic you can get onto ipv6 the less stress is on the v4 infrastructure. Each v6 connection is one your CGNAT doesn't have to provide an ipv4 port for.

So what? That’s still just a scaling factor at that point and still requires you to have v4 cgnat infrastructure + ipv6.

You don't have to beef up your v4 infra as much though. Think 4 powerful v4 routers instead of 5 or something. If the traffic to the big streaming providers doesn't have to run through these routers, you can save a lot. Same goes for the ipv4 address space you have to rent/buy. The more connections are on ipv6, the less public ipv4 addresses you need to have.

So ipv6 support might be saving you costs already in a dual stack setting.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#272

Post by _joel »

TekMol wrote: post #197
mgbmtl wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure I will have to. So far, nobody said IPv4 will be turned off. Maybe it will work for another 1000 years? Railroads have been around for over 2000 years and are still going strong. Despite cars and planes. Postal service has been going on for 4000 years. Since the times of the pharaohs! And It's still going strong, too. Despite phone, email and WhatsApp.

Not many wide-guage railroads left in the UK now though, despite probably being better.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#273

Post by wmf »

kortilla wrote: post #257
j16sdiz wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All apps on iOS support DNS64 on ipv6 only network.

That doesn’t help for servers that are only reachable via ipv4 (see GitHub).

NAT64+DNS64 is specifically for IPv6-only clients to access IPv4-only servers.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#274

Post by wmf »

kortex wrote: post #235

Question for the peanut gallery: Suppose I have a legacy ipv4 host which simply cannot do ipv6. Why couldn't I put some black box on my network connection in between my host and my uplink, which translates my host's IPv4 into a 4-over-6 IPv6 address? The black box can accept either v6 traffic and translate it for my host, or v4 and pass it straight through. The host only ever sees v4 traffic. V6-only clients can reso…

That's basically NAT64+DNS64.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#275

Post by kazen44 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #212
martinald wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I understand how NAT works. But CPU/memory is going down in cost way faster than bandwidth demand is increasing. Regardless, its way way cheaper than buying IPv4 blocks clearly, otherwise people wouldn't be doing it. Edit: ok, the problem isn't hardware, it's comedy license fees. https://itprice.com/juniper-price-list/cgn.html $470k for a license to do CGNAT at 100gbit/sec. Surely these guys are opening themselv…

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…

> I’m assuming it’s somewhat justified.

in a sense, yes. People claiming software based solutions can match performance of hardware basic ASIC's are simply not thinking about the scale and speeds of modern core routers and switches.

For instance, taken from the blog of ivan pepaljnak[0] > It’s hard to imagine how fast switching ASICs have to work – a modern data center switching ASIC can forward billions of packets per second. For example, the throughput of Broadcom Tomahawk 31 is 12.8 Tbps, and it can switch 8 billion packets per second, or 8 packets every nanosecond.

Another thing which makes routing at large scales with large traffic flows expensive is the separation of the control and data plane. most modern datacenter routers can continue forwarding traffic inside the ASIC while its control plane encounters a failure. (usually for a few 100ms to a second, after that the forwarding table will become stale, and this cannot be refreshed without a control plane).

Having a redundant control plane isn't that expensive, but it becomes harder and harder to keep this failover fast enough if your forwarding plane is pushing more and more individual traffic flows.

Then there are still other items which one can add to a modern router to make it do more but also cost more. (think about accelerated IPsec encryption, MACsec at line rate or DWDM functionality).

[0]: https://blog.ipspace.net/2022/06/data-center-switching-asic-...

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#276

Post by kazen44 »

londons_explore wrote: post #221
stingraycharles wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you ensure each user is capped at 100 connections without that check incurring additional resources?

You have a per user counter. So instead of 1200 bytes it's 1201 bytes per user.

how are you going to keep this counter? Do you identify the bytes that are processed in individual flows? Which system will keep track of this? the control plane of the router maybe? great... you just added additional complexity instead of just pushing packets through a forwarding plane.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#277

Post by drdaeman »

ineedasername wrote: post #103
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…

>I fill out 10x as many CAPTCHAs This a feature, not a bug. You can now identify a traffic light on a subconscious level 3x further away than the average driver that has an assigned IPv4. Where average drivers hesitate upon seeing a yellow light, wondering if they have enough time to go or not, you just know that a slight uptick in speed will get you through the intersection right as that yellow flashes over to red.

Wait, so that's how Elon is now training his autopilot? :)

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#278

Post by icelancer »

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?

Yeah, we've disabled it at our SMB at the router-level. No real benefit from using it and it causes DNS issues. We were actually advised to do this by our commercial ISP.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#279

Post by msbarnett »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #74
neilalexander wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firewalls are more complex on IPv6 This is not true. Firewall rules work exactly the same in IPv6 land as they do in IPv4 land. > you need to pass a bunch of ICMPv6 through, to make it work Indeed you shouldn't block ICMPv6, but that is not really making anything "more complex". > some residential routers have very bad or even zero firewall support for ipv6 Is there a proven set of routers that go through the troub…

> Firewall rules work exactly the same in IPv6 land as they do in IPv4 land. Yes, rules do work exactly the same, but with IPv4, you just let all the connections out through, and let just the established and connected ones back. > Indeed you shouldn't block ICMPv6, but that is not really making anything "more complex". But it is... you need a bunch of new rules to pass through, limit or block a bunch of ICMPv6 messag…

> Yes, rules do work exactly the same, but with IPv4, you just let all the connections out through, and let just the established and connected ones back

Yeah and? How do you think IPv6 works, it’s exactly the same.

My router’s firewall’s ipv6 section help: “All outbound traffic coming from IPv6 hosts on your LAN is allowed, as well as related inbound traffic. Any other inbound traffic must be specifically allowed here.”

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#280

Post by mgbmtl »

TekMol wrote: post #197
mgbmtl wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure I will have to. So far, nobody said IPv4 will be turned off. Maybe it will work for another 1000 years? Railroads have been around for over 2000 years and are still going strong. Despite cars and planes. Postal service has been going on for 4000 years. Since the times of the pharaohs! And It's still going strong, too. Despite phone, email and WhatsApp.

No - but I think at some point, you or your customers will see benefits in IPv6, or your clients may require it by policy (some of mine do). No rush, just saying, it takes time, may as well start with bits and pieces now.

As a provider, the main benefit I've seen is that every user has a roughly unique IP. It's easier to audit things. It's really messy when lots of users are behind CGNat. Another benefit, eventually, is the cost of IPv4 space (but admittedly not a big problem now).

Post reply on HN