Live data from Hacker News

IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

google.com

161–170 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#161

If GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks. This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update policies pro-actively. And cu…

Anyone who relies on IP filtering for security deserves to have it broken. Change my mind.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#162

As a French national, I am surprised to discover we are topping the charts according to this analysis. Does anybody know why that might be the case? What's the story of IPv6 deployment in France?

I'm wondering the same thing for India. Not the top but looks surprisingly surprisingly high. Perhaps I'm reading the data wrong.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#163
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6. The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that: 1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale…

Sure, the data plane supports it - but what about the management plane? I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs did all the management tasks through a 30-year-old homebrew pile of technical debt, with lots of things relying on basic assumptions like "every connection has exactly one ip address, which is 32 bits long". Porting all of that to support ipv6 can easily be a multi-year project.

This is true, I worked for an old ISP/mobile carrier that started in the 80s about 10-15 years ago. They had basically any system you could think of still running, from decently modern vmware with windows and linux to hp-ux, openvms, sunos, AIX, etc. Could walk around and see hardware 30 years old still going, I think one console router had an uptime of 14 years or so. One time I opened a cabinet and found a pentium 1 desktop pc on the floor still running and connected, served some webpage. The old SMSC from the 80s on DEC hardware was still in its racks though not operational, they didn't need the space as the room couldn't provide enough power or cooling for more than a few modern racks. The planning program for fiber, transmission, racks, etc, required such an old java that new security bugs didn't apply to it, and looked and worked like an old mainframe program.

The core team supported ipv6 for a long time, but its rather easy to do that part. The hard part is the customer edge and CPE and the stack to manage it, it may have a lifetime of 2 decades.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6. The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that: 1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale…

The big reason is that domestic ISPs don't want to switch (not just in the US, but everywhere really.) Data centers and most physical devices made the jump pretty early (I don't recall a time where the VPS providers I used didn't allow for IPv6 and every device I've used has allowed IPv6 in the last 2 decades besides some retro handhelds), but domestic ISPs have been lagging behind. Mobile networks are switching en m…

Except that is completely wrong. Consumer/residential networks have significantly higher ipv6 adoption rates that corporate/enterprise networks. That is why you see such clear patterns (weekend vs weekday) in the adoption graphs.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#165

As a French national, I am surprised to discover we are topping the charts according to this analysis. Does anybody know why that might be the case? What's the story of IPv6 deployment in France?

The regulatory body, ARCEP, has been very proactive since 2002 (!) on IPv6. The recent uptick is due to IPv6 obligations bundled in the 5G spectrum licences.

https://www.arcep.fr/la-regulation/grands-dossiers-internet-...

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#166
post #90

Every year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.

IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6. The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that: 1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale…

IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6. For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses…

How do the working IPv6 deployments cope with these issues?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#168
post #75

I wonder why Germany has a relative high adoption rate with 77%? They are normally behind when it comes to new technology. Is it because they have more carrier NAT? In Denmark I can get cheap 1 / 1 Gbit/s fiber, but still no ipv6 :(

We have enough IPv4 addresses (combined with CGNAT) in Denmark so the providers have no business incentive to spend money on supporting IPv6 :/

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#169
post #23

It's only a matter of time before laptops get 5G. Macbooks have been rumoured for a while to get cellular modems. [1] This will probably help adoption. On the one hand it will generate more IPv6 traffic. On the other hand it will expose more developers to IPv6; which will expose them to any lack of support for IPv6 within their own products. [1]: https://9to5mac.com/2025/08/14/apples-first-mac-with-5g-cell...

Dell, HP and Lenovo have had laptops with cellular modems for maybe 15 years at this point.

I can confirm this. I work at an e-waste recycling company, and the vast majority of my inventory is corporate IT decommissioned gear. About 1 out of 10 laptops I tear down has a cellular modem, going back to about Intel Core 5th gen.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#170
post #90

Every year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.

IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.

> IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4

Neither is IPv6

> To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6

The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4.

I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable security risk, as I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. That would be trivial with IPv4-with-more-bytes, it's a nightmare with IPv6.

Post reply on HN