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

271–280 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#271

Post by Dagger2 »

po1nt wrote: post #231
Ekaros wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think v6 isn't backwards compatible then literally anything bigger than 32 bits will never count as backwards compatible for you. The whole point of making the address space bigger is to make it bigger, so what do you expect to achieve by complaining that the result is incompatible?

As a human, I've found that e.g. "fd00::53" is perfectly readable to me, and most of the time you're interacting with strings like "news.ycombinator.com" anyway which is identical to how it works in v4, so I'm not sure how far I'd agree with that part either.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#272

Post by Dagger2 »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #246
po1nt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One of the craziest aspects of IPv6 implementation is the reverse DNS lookups. IPv6 uses ip6.arpa and segments each little nybble into a subdomain! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup#IPv6_revers... This means there are always 32 octets to a reverse-IPv6 address, and there are no shortcuts or macros to overcome this! That means if you wish to assign a singular name that maps from a legitimate /64 Network…

  $ dig -x 2606:7100:1:67::26 | grep PTR
  ;6.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.7.6.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.1.7.6.0.6.2.ip6.arpa. IN PTR
Run this, then copy/paste the output into your zone file. Remove the ; and add "example.com." or whatever to the end.

I agree it's a pain to read, mostly because DNS addresses are written backwards, but an "absurd non-solution"? For a set of instructions that don't even depend on the format of the record (they work for v4 too), and which I could describe in one line in a HN comment?

If this is the craziest part of v6 then it must be incredibly well designed overall.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#274

Post by Xirdus »

rmunn wrote: post #149

Zoom in on that graph using the controls at the bottom, and you'll see a repeating pattern of crests and troughs, weekly. There's about a 5% difference between the crests and the troughs: the crests are hitting the 50% line or just below it, and the troughs are down around 45%. The real question is, why are the crests so predictable? They're always on Saturdays; Sunday dips down a little below the crest, then Monday-…

Residential vs. business. If the graph was hourly and per country, you'd see the same rise every morning and drop every evening (likely by more than 5pp).

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#275

Post by skywhopper »

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 rollout is a lot of operational work that ends with next to no immediate quantifiable benefit. So I’ll never be prioritized in a cost-cutting environment.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#276

Post by mattstir »

shrubble wrote: post #245

I am aware of at least 2 telecoms, one publicly traded, that have very little to no IPv6 in their core networks and only use IPv6 when they have to. Personally I think the design of IPv6 offers very little benefit; supposedly the Dept of Defense/Dept of War holds some 175 million IPv4 addresses, with other companies also holding large allocations - that should have been addressed 25-30 years ago as an administrative…

To what end though? 4 billion addresses is not enough on its own, even if they were reallocated from hoarders. I think that NAT and especially CGNAT have been very detrimental to the shape of the internet, where it's nearly impossible to self-host a public service without a VPN of some kind. Needing to pay some company for the ability to host a server that isn't behind NAT is a barrier that doesn't need to exist when IPv6 has a nearly limitless number of addresses.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#277

Post by Dagger2 »

TekMol wrote: post #264

I still do not support IPv6 on my servers and I think I will skip it and wait for IPv8: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html Avoiding a dual-stack and making IPv4 a part of whatever superseeds it seems like the right choice to me. IPv6 always seemed to me like throwing away all existing telephone numbers, just to support longer numbers.

  ::203.0.113.42 (tunnels to 203.0.113.42 over v4)
  64:ff9b::203.0.113.42 (translates to v4 at nearest NAT64 point)
  ::ffff:203.0.113.42 (opens a v4 connection via an AF_INET6 socket)
What are these then?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#278

Post by [deleted] »

alibarber wrote: post #238
stackghost wrote: post #35

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…

> 1: it's hard to remember addresses fd::1 is perfectly valid internal IPv6 address (along with fd::2 ... fd::n)

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#280

Post by p4bl0 »

fossilwater wrote: post #237
p4bl0 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, with "RED by SFR" specifically.

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

I know, but at the time I had to choose an ISP, they were the only ones with an offer with just internet (and a phone line), all others ISP forced a bundle with dozens of TV channels that I don't need along with their internet access subscription. They were also the most competitive price wise, and other than this problem (which is new for me, I had an IPv6 and a static IPv4 until a few weeks ago), I'm satisfied with the service :).
Post reply on HN