Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPv6 Deployment Status

datatracker.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#21

Post by hyperionplays »

jiggawatts wrote: post #13
neilalexander wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do. I also don't think IPv6 is a "failed technology" at all. If you've used almost any zeroconf service on an Apple product recently (AirP…

Most phone companies now provide IPv6 natively over their 4G/5G service, and IPv4 goes through carrier-grade NAT.

Pretty sure all xbox services use v6 where possible as well.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#22

Post by AndrewDucker »

From the article, in millions of users:

  Jan 2018 - 513.07
  Jan 2019 - 574.02
  Jan 2020 - 989.25
  Jan 2021 - 1,136
  Jan 2022 - 1,207
A growth rate of 24%

Looking at Google's IPv6 stats:

  July 2019 - 29%
  July 2020 - 33%
  July 2021 - 36%
  July 2022 - 42%
  July 2023 - 44%
Or an increase of about 3% each year.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#23

Post by throw0101b »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #5
menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.

> The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Why should it be necessary to have to deal with all the extraneous infrastructure of STUN/TURN/ICE just for basic connectivity?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Connectivity_Estab...

You have your stateful firewall that does default-deny, only allowing in packets that are replies to internally-initiated sessions. If you need to do hole punching you have UPnP or PCP (which also allows for authentication of requests):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Gateway_Device_Protoc...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#24

Post by throw0101b »

eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

> At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology.

Meanwhile 45% of Google's worldwide traffic is IPv6, 53% in the US:

* https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#25

Post by throw0101b »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #22

From the article, in millions of users: Jan 2018 - 513.07 Jan 2019 - 574.02 Jan 2020 - 989.25 Jan 2021 - 1,136 Jan 2022 - 1,207 A growth rate of 24% Looking at Google's IPv6 stats: July 2019 - 29% July 2020 - 33% July 2021 - 36% July 2022 - 42% July 2023 - 44% Or an increase of about 3% each year.

> July 2023 - 44%

What's the worldwide average. For the US specifically it's the majority of traffic at 53%:

* https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#26

Post by eptcyka »

mgbmtl wrote: post #11
eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

Not to invalidate your feelings, but that seems quite normal. I feel the same. IPv6 has been mature for over 15 years and is slowly making its way. Most major LTE carriers have deployed it, most home broadband providers have the infra in place, they're just waiting to flip the switch. We're in the boring, uneventful, slow deployment phase.

It's not being deployed more widely because peering is always broken and nobody cares to fix it because nobody is using it. It's a horrible catch-22.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#27

Post by Faaak »

jiggawatts wrote: post #13
neilalexander wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do. I also don't think IPv6 is a "failed technology" at all. If you've used almost any zeroconf service on an Apple product recently (AirP…

Most phone companies now provide IPv6 natively over their 4G/5G service, and IPv4 goes through carrier-grade NAT.

My ISP offers a plan without IPv4 at a lower price. v4 websites only are served through their NAT64/DNS64 infrastructure and it works really well except for some dumb applications that hardcode the IPv4 instead of using domain names (yeah, and also the ones that rewrite the entire stack in C and only support AF_INET...)

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#28

Post by ajsnigrutin »

menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

The only difference is, that you're not "protected" by nat, so packets going back to you, can go back to you (but this is solved by a simple firewall installed by default on pretty much any ipv6 enabled CPE).

With ipv6 privacy extensions, your IP address changes every few minutes (withoin the same /64 network) so it's not a lot different (privacy wise) than today, wher that whole network would be hidden behind a single IPv4 address.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#30

Post by azlev »

eknkc wrote: post #4

At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology. It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.

Not sure if you agree, but I think ipv6 is fine, the transition is a disaster.
Post reply on HN