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

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#331

Post by lmm » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 12:38 PM UTC

Dagger2 wrote: post #322

lmm wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If you have an IPv4 address, even a dynamic one, then IPv6 may not offer you a lot of practical benefit, but CGNAT-only sucks if you're at all technical.

It sucks if you're non-technical too, it's just harder for non-technical users to figure out the underlying source of any problems they have. v6 also has better measured performance on webpage load times. Perhaps "pages load slightly slower than they could do" isn't a show-stopping problem, but faster would still be better, right?

CGNAT specifically means you can't have even temporary peer-to-peer connections, e.g. non-server multiplayer games generally won't work. And forget about trying to host anything, dynamic DNS services can't help you here. That to me is a much bigger problem than IPv4 in general being a bit slower.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#332

Post by phpisthebest » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 12:43 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #86

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, there are situations like "The crap VPN (hello AnyConnect) my work makes me use doesn't work if IPV6 is enabled. And I could troubleshoot it, but it's easier to disable IPV6 on my PC" .

Default config, last I checked, for AnyConnect is to block all ipv6 even if split tunneling it enabled, the client will block all ipv6 unless it has been specifically configured to allow

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#333

Post by NelsonMinar » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

bumblebritches5 wrote: post #176

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.

Where I live, I can try to use 4G. I get one bar of signal and when it's working I get anywhere from 0.2 to 20Mbps with 700ms (!) latency. It costs $80 for 150Gb a month.

Or I can use Starlink. I get a solid reliable signal, anywhere from 20-250 Mbps with 60ms latency. It costs $110 for unlimited bandwidth.

The real competition where I am is fixed wireless. That's 12 Mbps, 70ms latency, and $100/mo.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#334

Post by rr808 » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 1:49 PM UTC

neilalexander wrote: post #63

withinboredom wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ooooh, this is actually fun. Your IP does not change, even when switching from LTE, 3G, 4G and 5G. There's an excellent post in the old Sprint forums where a company network engineer explains how it works. I can't find it though, but it's pretty wild.

In brief, it is because internet connectivity on most cellular networks goes through single gateways and devices are effectively "tunnelling" to those gateways. As long as the tunnel stays up and the mobile device is still identifiable on the RAN then the IP address assigned from the internet gateway doesn't need to change.

OK so no advantage with IP6?

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#335

Post by tyingq » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 2:11 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #332

tyingq wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are situations like "The crap VPN (hello AnyConnect) my work makes me use doesn't work if IPV6 is enabled. And I could troubleshoot it, but it's easier to disable IPV6 on my PC" .

Default config, last I checked, for AnyConnect is to block all ipv6 even if split tunneling it enabled, the client will block all ipv6 unless it has been specifically configured to allow

There's all sorts of things controlled at the head end. As mentioned, didn't troubleshoot it. But, disabling ipv6 on my PC, and then everything works. Turn it back on, nothing works.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#336

Post by staticassertion » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 4:57 PM UTC

dc-programmer wrote: post #177

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…

Thanks. I'll have to do some googling on that.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#337

Post by soupbowl » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

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…

Starlink dishes support ipv6, I've been using it for awhile. Their stock router box does not support ipv6 though.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#338

Post by hnarn » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

arccy wrote: post #199

hnarn wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go is also basically bound to IPv4 since it depends on github to pull packages Is this also true for the Go module proxy?

no: $ dig +short AAAA proxy.golang.org 2a00:1450:4009:820::2011

So Go is not “basically bound to IPv4” since the proxy is enabled by default.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#339

Post by kortilla » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #271

kortilla wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dua…

Take a step back to the wider context of a brand new ISP though. If you’re rushing to market like Starlink appears to be, you either implement just v4 and scale later or implement both v4/v6 up front.

Until there is a bunch of exclusive v6 stuff customers will be up in arms over missing, the answer of which thing to prioritize is obvious.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#340

Post by tinus_hn » Mon, Jul 04, 2022, 7:54 PM UTC

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.

That is intentional. Stable identifiers that get transmitted over the internet lead to unavoidable tracking.