And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
A non-trivial minority of the time, they don't support IPv4 either!
What? One nine isn’t good enough for you?
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
201–210 of 643 posts
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#202There really should have been proper government pressure and fines long ago.
Say if you have 10% of market share or x million monthly users you must support IPv6 in say 5 years. If not you are fined say 2% revenue per year until you do...
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#203They have released the draft for IPv8 two days ago: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html Does it mean we better put our chips on IPv8?
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#204As 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.
Reliance Jio deployed cheap native v6 and tool massive market share. They single-handedly moved the market.
It's been discussed on the apnic blog and at meetings heaps
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-trivial minority of the time, they don't support IPv4 either!
What? One nine isn’t good enough for you?
Excuse me. Zero nines. Or two nines if you relax your definition of where they are in the number. https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/116334321751266751
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#206Every 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.
There were backwards-compatible protocols proposed, such as EIP, but the committee chose a backwards-incompatible protocol for v6. Their assumption was that v4 would run out of space in a single-digit number of years and everyone would be forced to migrate. The past 30 years have shown that not to be the case.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has something like 80% of the world's IPv4 addresses, so they feel a lot less pressure to migrate.
I’ve worked for a company that was barely using its /16. I know several individuals, including myself, with personal /24s.
None of which are any help when connecting to someone who doesn't have those.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#208Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Router has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT port forwarding to the reverse proxy. So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions? I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.
Privacy extensions are additional addresses that are used by default for outbound connections. You still have the non-privacy address, which doesn't change; put that one into DNS. This approach prevents outbound connections from leaking the address needed to connect to your servers. On v4, it's likely that any outbound connection from your network gives the server the IP they need to do that.
My ISP changes the prefix on a regular base (and on request)