And yet I still haven't ever connected to an internet provider that supports IPv6, across two countries I spend time in...
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
341–350 of 643 posts
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#342A hidden benefit is it's no longer possible to have another "we typed the wrong IP address" raid story. IPv6 is larger than the total number of heartbeats of all heart-bearing life that has ever existed. You either nailed the abuse address or you're raiding something that doesn't even exist.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#343And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
Same with Twilio. We have an internal server that does system alerts. We recently moved it to an IPv6 only host, and a few weeks went by and noticed there were no longer receiving alerts. Turns out we could not connect to Twilio's API which is IPv4 only.
So zero validation after that change?
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#344Can someone reconcile for me the constant chatter about how IPv6 isn't getting impemented, versus this result that more than half of all traffic (as measured by google) is now IPv6? It sounds to me like its a tool which is available to be used when needed and when no better workarounds exist, and it is slowly but surely being adopted as needed.
As a sometimes chatterer, it's a mix of complaining about the annoying changes in v6 that weren't just lengthening the address fields, pointing out that the migration is taking forever, and implying a less disruptive design could have rolled out faster.
For a long time, there really was next to no progress. Between the introduction in 1996 and about 2011, there was very little adoption. And since 2012 when pushing really started, we're at about 50% globally, with large variance by country and network type. 15 years between creation and real deployment seems like a lot, and 15 years of deployment getting to 50% also seems likes a lot.
But wikipedia says touch tone dialing was first offered to consumers in the 1960s and didn't become majority until the 1980s, so maybe 30 years isn't that slow.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#345I 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…
There are 16 /8's in the class E address space that were never allocated, and 19 /8's (by my count) allocated to individual companies. If you waved a wand and returned all of that space to IANA for allocation, you would have staved off IPv4 address exhaustion by... about 3 years.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#346meanwhile I just disabled ipv6 on all my vm's last night due to ubuntu package servers being down and needing to get something critical out the door.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
... But that's no different from IPv4. Sometimes you have one per user, sometimes there are ~1000 users per IP. Most of the ipv4 world is now behind CGNAT, one user per ip is simply a wrong assumption.
Anonymous rate limits for us are skewed towards preventing abusive behavior. Most users do not have a problem, even there is a CGNAT on IPv4. For IPv6, if we block on /128 and a single machine gets /64, a malicious user has near infinite IPs. In the case of Linode and others that do /64 for a whole data center, it's easy to rate limit the whole thing. Wrong assumption or not, it is an issue that is made worse by IPv6
I don't doubt your experience, but I wouldn't expect it to continue. I don't think Tuna-Fish is correct that "most" of the IPv4 world is behind CGNAT, but that does appear to be the trend. You can't even assume hosting providers give their subscribers their own IPv4 addresses anymore. On the other hand, there's a chance providers like Linode will eventually wise up and start giving subscribers their own /64 - there are certainly enough IPv6 addresses available for that, unlike with IPv4.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#348It 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…
> Also, notice how Android and iOS don't support turning off IPv4. You can trivially connect an iOS device via IPv6 only.
Presumably thats with the network having a PLAT somewhere if you’re relying on CLAT for any v4-only connections when you use safari
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#349It 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…
Nothing stops you running a NAT for v6 too, its just people tend to choose not to when given the choice
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#350It'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...
| Macbooks have been rumoured for a while to get cellular modems.
Maybe they are finally coming, however the rumors are older then the iPhone. Example from 2008: https://pcr-online.biz/2008/11/03/3g-macbooks-on-the-way/