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

IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#231

Post by po1nt »

Ekaros wrote: post #146
po1nt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice idea. Always wondered why IPv6 went so ambitious with the addressing

Might as well go big. 24 extra bytes per packet is not that big deal. And having that much extra space means you can screw up design multiple times and still be able to reuse lot of infra. Also getting rid of idea that you are even trying to manually manage the address space eases many things.

But it's not human readable anymore, nor backwards compatible. The expectation was that the industry is reasonable, but it proved to be as hard as it would be to push breaking email v2 implementation.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#232

Post by mmbleh »

globular-toast wrote: post #25
rtdq wrote: post #13

And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539

Do we know any technical reason for this? Or are we left to think this is somehow a political thing?

IPv6 is very difficult to implement and enforce reliable rate limits on anonymous traffic. This is something we've struggled a lot with - there is no consistent implementation or standard when it comes to assigning of IPv6 addresses. sometimes a machine gets a full /64, other times a whole data center uses a full /64. So then we need to try and build knowledge of what level to block based on which IP range and for some it's just not worth the hassle.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#233

Post by ninkendo »

jabl wrote: post #73

Are any ISP's or corp intranets doing IPv6-mostly style networks yet: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-link-v6ops-6mops-00.ht... That seems to be a promising approach.

T-Mobile does: https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-...

They use 464XLAT, basically NAT64/DNS64 with some extra cooperation on the OS’s part for backwards compatibility with apps that hard-code IPv4. You get only a v6 address, and your OS basically synthesizes an v4 network on your device in cooperation with their NAT64 router. But all the bytes going from your device through to their towers are ipv6. Talking to a v4-only website uses carrier-grade NAT64 when leaving the t-mobile network.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#234

Post by Galanwe »

menotyou wrote: post #144
keybits wrote: post #129

Tailscale have a great FAQ about IPv4 vs IPv6: https://tailscale.com/docs/reference/faq/ipv6 If you're not an expert in this area it's worth a read - I certainly learned a few things!

"IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP), the successor to IPv4." This is a misconception. It is not the successor to IPv4, it is an alternative. Maybe the alternative is so good it will eventually make the older extinct, but it does not look like that

I agree with you. While I can see some benefits to v6 on the internet, I find v4 to be miles easier and cleaner to work with in a LAN setup. Unfortunately though v6 oversteps on LAN features and makes bridging v4 and v6 way uglier than it should.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#235

Post by gempir »

venzaspa wrote: post #55
molf wrote: 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.

*A few select models got celluar modems.

I have owned several Dell, HP and Lenovo Laptops in the past 15 years and I have never had a cellular modem.

When Apple makes a change like that it impacts a lot of customers because they have way fewer skews.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#236

Post by bluGill »

Ekaros wrote: post #202

There 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...

I'd make it required that ipv6 for all customers has a higher service guarentee than anyone ipv4. If you don't support ipv6 you can't guarentee anything. give two years to to implement it.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#237

Post by fossilwater »

p4bl0 wrote: post #141
harg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you with SFR? I also seem to only have a static IPv4 (I don't pay for it, but it's never changed in the lifetime of the connection). I asked for an IPv6 but they said it was not possible/difficult.

Yep, with "RED by SFR" specifically.

Among all the major French providers, SFR lags far behind its competition unfortunately

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#238

Post by alibarber »

stackghost wrote: post #35
usui wrote: post #5

It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it. I thought I would see IPv6 take over in my lifetime as the default for platforms to build on but I can see I was wrong. Enterprise and commercial companies are literally going to hold back internet progress around 60 to 75 years because it's in their best interest to ensure users…

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…

> 1: it's hard to remember addresses

fd::1 is perfectly valid internal IPv6 address (along with fd::2 ... fd::n)

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#240

Post by alibarber »

yosamino wrote: post #197
alibarber wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been messing around personally with getting my own blocks of IP addresses and routing[1] - I've become terrified at the idea of implementing access control based on IP address. Unless your own organisation in the RR has the IP addresses assigned to you as Provider Independent resources, there just seems to be so many places where 'your' IP address could, albeit most likely accidentally, become not yours any mo…

Oh, cool! that's on my bucket list as well. I am still grappling with some concepts, though. Do you have a writeup of your setup somewhere or can you recommend some learning materials ?

It's fun and has now become an addictive rabbit hole - trying to get packets from one location to the other in the fastest, most direct way (and at hobbyist budget level).

Initial writeup based on IPv6: https://abarber.com/Setting-Up-ASN-IPv6-Routing-BIRD-Teltoni...

Have been having fun recently with an IPv4 block and Asynchronous routing, working on writing that up right now :)

Post reply on HN