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

441–450 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#441

Post by easterncalculus »

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.

World IPv6 Day was in 2011, so 15 years since then. This is also requiring a consumer hardware and software upgrade on both the client and server (resource they're accessing). GitHub doesn't have to implement 4G support.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#442

Post by QuercusMax »

jeroenhd wrote: post #227
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…

One of the big challenges with IPv6 remains that many of the knows-just-enough-about-networking people, like support staff, often never received any IPv6 training (or, for that matter, even enough IPv4 training that they don't need to Google things that come up in real life). Another is that the weird, awful, everyone-hostile corporate "solutions" often break IPv6 in stupid ways (like load balancers and logging tools…

Here's an example of a potential security hole caused by lack of ipv6 knowledge:

I've been setting up Snapcast (open-source multi-room audio), and needed to move the server to a different machine. While I was setting up the new system, I told it to only bind to localhost. Somehow this only affects the ipv4 networking stack, as some of my clients started automatically connecting to the new server even before I had finished all my testing.

Turns out that it was advertising some kind of ipv6 link-local address that showed up in autodiscovery. In my case there wasn't any harm, but this type of thing could very easily result in a major security vulnerability.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#443

Post by nickserv »

tyingq wrote: post #434
colechristensen wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand, wouldn't it make it easier?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#444

Post by cassianoleal »

Galanwe wrote: post #234
menotyou wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> v6 oversteps on LAN features and makes bridging v4 and v6 way uglier than it should

How so?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#445

Post by embedding-shape »

tialaramex wrote: post #437
embedding-shape wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-achiev…

True, "back of the net" is more "someone kicked the ball really hard and it hit the back of the net really hard" instead of "the ball came across the goal line" which can be very different, so in my mind that's as close to "out of the park" as you can get in soccer :)

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#446

Post by vel0city »

Galanwe wrote: post #170
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.

> IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4 Neither is IPv6 > To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6 The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4. I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable…

> I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other.

You'd still have that in your IPv4-with-more-bytes, as you'll still probably end up running dual-stack to address those old-v4-only sites. Or you'd do the same with v6 and run a tunnel to translate those v4-only addresses to your v4-with-more-bytes. So you're in the same situation either way.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#447

Post by mjcl »

crote wrote: post #78
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…

Sure, the data plane supports it - but what about the management plane? I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs did all the management tasks through a 30-year-old homebrew pile of technical debt, with lots of things relying on basic assumptions like "every connection has exactly one ip address, which is 32 bits long". Porting all of that to support ipv6 can easily be a multi-year project.

Comcast actually implemented IPv6 10-15 years ago so that they could unify the management of all of their cable modems. Prior to that they had many regional networks using with modems assigned management IPs in overlapping private IPv4 ranges.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#448

Post by lxgr »

g8oz wrote: post #383
lxgr wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we keep around a whole separate Internet? Dual stack was always only intended for the transition period.

It's very hard to get rid of old standards. "The past is never dead. It's not even past"

Of course there's an incredibly long tail here, but in the big picture, "nobody except some people maintaining a few legacy systems ever need to learn to work with this protocol anymore" is practically the same thing.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#449

Post by cassianoleal »

kalleboo wrote: post #378
toast0 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then there's IP fragmentation and PMTU that are a burning trash fire. It's not significantly worse on v6 compared to v4. Yes, in theory, you can send v4 packets without DF and helpful routers will fragment for you. In practice, nobody wants that: end points don't like reassembling and may drop fragments; routers have limited cpu budget off the fast path and segment too big is off the fast path, so too big may be dr…

> but there's plenty of derpy networks out there for v4 as well. God yes, I've helped so many users on PPPoE by telling them to set their MTU to something lower...

In my case, I set the MTU of the physical NIC to 1508 and kept the PPPoE interface at 1500. Best of both worlds. Needs the ISP to support it though.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#450

Post by lxgr »

stackghost wrote: post #426
lxgr wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's hard to remember addresses We desperately need a standardized protocol to look up addresses via names. Something hierarchical, maybe. > with v6 you can't rely on NAT as an ersatz firewall Why would you not just use a regular firewall? Any device that is able to act as a NAT could act as a firewall, with less complexity at that.

>Why would you not just use a regular firewall? No idea, but people do it. Every time this comes up on HN there are dozens of comments about how they like hiding their devices behind a NAT, for security

Just because people regularly bring up a non sequitur doesn't mean there actually is a problem.

"I have a device acting as both a NAT and a stateful firewall, why are you making me switch to IPv6 and in the process drop both the NAT and the stateful firewall?" is a non sequitur.

Post reply on HN