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

431–440 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#431

Post by vel0city »

nlitened wrote: post #263
jl6 wrote: post #105

Everyone's saying progress is slow, but maybe this is just how long it takes to do massive decentralized global migrations affecting billions of people. What are we comparing against? Maybe the ICE-to-EV transition?

For example, compared to migration from 3G to 4G networks. As I understand, from the launch of 4G to complete shutdown of 3G it took around 12—14 years.

One major difference in the 3G->4G and now 4G->5G conversion was that was largely a single-party change in the end to actually implement. The client and the server hosting an application doesn't care about whether that traffic is over 3G or 4G or IP over Avian Carriers as long as the packets get there in a reasonable time. Going from IPv4 to IPv6 requires lots of very different players to all work together to make the transition, meanwhile for a carrier to go from 3G to 4G its largely on them and their direct contractors.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#432

Post by sidewndr46 »

rayiner wrote: post #377
jonhohle wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that what MoCa is for?

Isn’t twinax just “I heard you like coax so I put coax in your coax.”

twinax I think is used more like a balanced line with shielding. Twisted pair is preferred because it is cheaper, but for short stuff like SATA the cost difference is so low it might as well be used

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#433

Post by farfatched »

voltagex_ wrote: post #138
farfatched wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub should absolutely support IPv6, but until then... transip.eu provide IPv6 addresses which transparently proxy to github.com: https://www.transip.eu/knowledgebase/5277-using-transip-gith... You'll need to update your DNS server to include those as AAAA records. Do providers like NextDNS or RethinkDNS allow these sorts of overrides?

>The Github IPv6 Proxy can only be used for traffic to Github using a VPS from TransIP which uses IPv6.

Good spot. Sorry to disappoint!

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#434

Post by tyingq »

colechristensen wrote: post #356
CupricTea wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub is at the point where it immediately rate limits me if I try to look at a project's commit history without being logged in, as in the first time I even open a single URL to the commit history, I get "Too Many Requests" from GitHub thrown at me. I don't know if my work's antivirus stack is causing GitHub to be suspicious of me, but it's definitely egregious.

Your work is probably all exiting through the same IP, you competing with others on the same IP is causing the rate limit.

May explain the ipv6 resistance. Hard to do effective per-ip rate-limiting with v6.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#435

Post by Dagger2 »

mprovost wrote: post #206
AndrewDucker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1385

They went with SIPP, which was one of the backwards-compatible options. It should be kind of obvious from the vast number of backwards compatibility methods available in v6 that v6 is actually backwards compatible... but for some reason a lot of people either refuse to believe this or have double standards around what counts as compatibility.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#436

Post by toast0 »

throw0101a wrote: post #199
literalAardvark wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been there. Management was fine with the testing but it added too much overhead for nearly no benefit to us. One more thing to troubleshoot at 3 am, one more thing to teach to a disinterested tier 1 support team, one more thing for Chrome to be weird about, hundreds more rules to manage in a hostile load balancer, logging tools that don't understand ipv6. Turned it off. End customer asked why the site got a litt…

Facebook is (AIUI) 100% IPv6-only on their internal network, and has been for many years: * https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering... * https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2014/09/facebook-launch... IPv4 is actually the "leftover" stuff they have to deal with at the front end. But they are an eye-balls heavy service, with a lot of mobile devices, which also tend to be IPv6-native.

From my time there, this is for the internal prod network. Corporate networking was dual stack (which was pretty useful because it was common for v4 or v6 to break, but usually not at the same time)

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#437

Post by tialaramex »

embedding-shape wrote: post #391
tialaramex wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read that thread, I guess one of the small upsides of the world I live in is that "FIFA Peace Prize" is now available as a joke award reference. FIFA really hit it out of the park there in a way that even their normal legendary levels of corruption couldn't imagine. Edited: In hindsight I notice that "hit it out of the park" is the wrong sport metaphor for FIFA, but I stand by it anyway.

> Edited: In hindsight I notice that "hit it out of the park" is the wrong sport metaphor for FIFA, but I stand by it anyway. For future reference, you can use: "knocked it into the top corner", "put it in the back of the net" or "smashed it past the keeper". Not a native football-talker, but hang out too much with a few.

"Back of the net" doesn't feel the same to me even though (I learn after reading far too much about a sport I do not play) "Out of the park" is basically the same thing.

In my mind "out of the park" had meant the ball leaves the actual stadium but in fact (I read) "the park" in this context is actually the field of play and so "out of the park" represents in fact the vast majority of home runs and not the over-achievement I had imagined.

So TIL but thanks for the suggestions.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#438

Post by easterncalculus »

pjf wrote: post #133

NB: this is not "IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark" but "availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users", which is a very important difference. This means roughly half of Google users have IPv6 capability , which does not 1:1 correspond how much traffic is actually transferred over IPv6, which is what this submission says in the title.

Right, but in most situations clients will prefer IPv6 if its available, so if they have access, they almost always are using it, at the very least from their local network.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#439

Post by vel0city »

kalleboo wrote: post #185
hosh wrote: post #179

I am in the middle of building infrastructure in GCP. The workload is your typical stateless web + db workload. As of now, there is no way to have a 100% internal ipv6. Many of the services, including CloudSQL or the connection between external and internal load balancers do not support ipv6, even when the external load balancer support ipv6 forwarding rules at the front end. This means that careful internal ipv4 all…

I had the same issue a few months ago on AWS. All I want is a server (that pulls a container), a database, and a load balancer. It's all going behind CloudFront so there should be no need to pay for an IPv4 address for any internal machine. Couldn't do it. Since then I saw that there was some movement on IPv6 for RDS but IIRC there was still some other blocker.

> so there should be no need to pay for an IPv4 address for any internal machine

At what level did you need to pay for IPv4 addresses in this stack? You should have been able to make this work with a private IPv4 space, have the ECS services be dual-stack and be on both the v6 network and the v4 network to talk to the database server, have the ALB be v6, and then have Cloudfront be v6. If you wanted, you could also just ignore v6 for the ECS services and have them just live in that same v4 subnet entirely.

I could be wrong (and please tell me what I'm missing) but you shouldn't have had to pay for IPv4 in this case. I do just wish RDS (and so much else) would just support IPv6 though, you shouldn't need to have a bunch of extra subnets just to talk to your database.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#440

Post by jermaustin1 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #429
jermaustin1 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who? The infrastructure team that did the move didn't even tell anyone. They were decommissioning old servers, and moving the VMs to new hardware. I'm just a lowly developer that had to troubleshoot why SMSes stopped going out.

Observability and alerting is pretty standard devops. Both the dev and infrastructure teams dropped the ball here. But at least as part of remediating this you added alerting to make sure you’d notice when your twillio connection fails in the future, right?

Even better, infrastructure enabled IPv6, and the issue was closed.

In corporate software development, we work the tickets assigned, and keep our KPIs up so that we don't face the wrath of the bean counters.

Post reply on HN