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

461–470 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#461

Post by Dagger2 »

menotyou wrote: post #209
Dagger2 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy extensions are additional addresses that are used by default for outbound connections. You still have the non-privacy address, which doesn't change; put that one into DNS. This approach prevents outbound connections from leaking the address needed to connect to your servers. On v4, it's likely that any outbound connection from your network gives the server the IP they need to do that.

My ISP changes the prefix on a regular base (and on request)

So you'll never have a permanent unchanging v6 address to ID your traffic with.

Privacy extensions are orthogonal here; they only affect the suffix, not the prefix. As for dealing with a changing prefix... I'm afraid you'll just have to find some way to automate the DNS updates. You can do it with a program running on one of the servers -- I can't suggest a specific one offhand since I have a static prefix and haven't needed it, but they do exist.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#462

Post by [deleted] »

anilakar wrote: post #457
badgersnake wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess you didn’t read it.

15 years ago I would have dismissed this immediately as an elaborate troll but nowadays you cannot be sure anymore. I'm suggesting moving on to IPvNN which requires device and ISP forced guarantees that the originator is not under the effect nor the lack of any medication or other substance, not being coerced and not using non-human assistants in content creation.

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#463

Post by kstrauser »

Galanwe wrote: post #384
kstrauser wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don’t understand this. The concepts are nearly identical between the two.

Hum no, to me they are orthogonal. v4 was built around the idea of multiple free standing networks linked by gateways. v6 was built around the idea of a universal network. I dont care about what your LAN adress space look like when I'm in my LAN, because we are not in the same v4 network. I am sovereign in my network. With v6, everyone is effectively in the same network. I have to ask my ISP for a prefix that he will…

v4 and v6 were build around the exact same use cases.

> With v6, everyone is effectively in the same network.

Just like IPv4.

> I have to ask my ISP for a prefix that he will rent me for money even for my LAN.

Just like IPv4, if you need a static address.

> If I want some freedom from said ISP prefix, I am mercifully granted the honor of managing ULA/NAT66 (granted I paid for a fancy router).

Compared with IPv4, where if you want some freedom from said ISP subnet, you are mercifully granted the honor of managing RFC-1918 addresses/NAT (granted you paid for a router that doesn't screw it up).

> Also if I want any kind of privacy, I will have to manage privacy extensions

...which are enabled by default nearly universally

> and the great invention of having to use automatically generated, dynamically routed, essentially multiple random IPs per interface.

Make up your mind. Are rotating, privacy-preserving addresses good or bad? The way it works in real life, not in the strawman version, is that you (automatically!) use the random addresses for outgoing connections and the fixed addresses for incoming.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#464

Post by aetimmes »

jiggawatts wrote: post #187
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

The irony of this is that pretty much all they'd have to do to enable IPv6 support is to use Azure Front Door as their CDN. Or... use any other CDN, they pretty much all default to providing IPv6!

Last I checked, they're on Fastly who already support IPv6.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#465

Post by ianburrell »

preisschild wrote: post #18
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…

> It should be ISPs doing that to prepare for the transition. Yeah, I dont get why more ISPs don't offer carrier-grade NAT64 instead of the typical CGNAT

NAT64 doesn't make sense for consumers. There are too many apps that hardcoded IPv4 in their code. People are going to complain that their old Xbox games don't work.

For most people, dual stack works fine. For mobile, the solution is 464XLAT that translates locally. There is MAP-E that does translation on gateway with IPv4 on local network.

For businesses, NAT64 makes more sense cause they can control what software is running. Even there, usually have to make IPv4 subnet for the old printers.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#466

Post by hosh »

dijit wrote: post #189
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 think its incredibly ironic actually. The place where IPs are burned through rapidly (internal) is forced to use v4. (and, potentially even a subset of it, RFC1918; likely conflicting with some large company or service if they decide to plumb it together later- or you burn publicly accessible IPs in the limited address space) But the one interface that touches the internet can use v6: the one with a functionally in…

GCP encourages customers to use Class E (240.0.0.0/4) as internal IPs. That helps.

What I am building won’t exhaust that, but I hear some customers are blowing through even that.

PSC has a builtin NAT. That also helps stitch things together.

… or we can have ipv6.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#467

Post by torcete »

anilakar wrote: post #457
badgersnake wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess you didn’t read it.

15 years ago I would have dismissed this immediately as an elaborate troll but nowadays you cannot be sure anymore. I'm suggesting moving on to IPvNN which requires device and ISP forced guarantees that the originator is not under the effect nor the lack of any medication or other substance, not being coerced and not using non-human assistants in content creation.

That goes for me?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#468

Post by ianburrell »

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.

"The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6."

How would Google know what users have the potential for IPv6 if they are not using it?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#469

Post by jampekka »

bananamogul wrote: post #413
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…

"Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow?" Just the obvious one: the people who designed IPv6 didn't design for backwards compatibility.

> Just the obvious one: the people who designed IPv6 didn't design for backwards compatibility.

Nor for easy transition.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#470

Post by cyberax »

holowoodman wrote: post #288
cyberax wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6. For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses…

> For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. That's only true for smalltime home networks. Try to merge 2 company IPv4 networks with overlapping RFC1918 ranges like 10.0.0.0/8. We'll talk again in 10 years when you are done sorting out that mess ;) > In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connecti…

> That's only true for smalltime home networks. Try to merge 2 company IPv4 networks with overlapping RFC1918 ranges like 10.0.0.0/8. We'll talk again in 10 years when you are done sorting out that mess ;)

Look, I've been doing IPv6 for 20 years, starting with a 6to4 tunnel and then moving to HE.net before getting native connectivity. I'm probably one of the first people who started using Asterisk for SIP on an actual IPv6-enabled segmented network.

I _know_ all the pitfalls of IPv6 and IPv4. And at this point, I'm 100% convinced that NAT+IPv4 is not just an accidental artifact but a better solution for most practical purposes.

> What you skipped are the really stupid problems with DHCPv6 which make it practically useless in many situations: DHCPv6 by default doesn't include the MAC address in requests.

Yes. DUIDs were another stupid idea. As I said, IPv6 is a cascade of recursive WTFs at every step of the way.

And let me re-iterate, I'm not interested in academic "but acshually" reasons. I know that you can run IPv4 with DHCP giving out publically routable IPv4 addresses to every host in the internal network without NAT. Or that you can do NAT on IPv6 or laboriously type static IPv6 addresses in your config.

What matters is the actual operational practice. Do you want a challenge? Try to do this:

1. An IPv6 network for a small office with printers, TVs, and perhaps a bunch of smart lightbulbs.

2. With two Internet uplinks. One of them a cellular modem and another one a fiber connection.

3. You want failover support, ideally in a way that does not interrupt Zoom meetings or at least not for more than a couple of seconds.

4. No NAT (because otherwise why bother with IPv6?).

Go on, try that. This is something that I can do in 10 minutes using an off-the-shelf consumer/prosumer router and IPv4. With zero configuration for the clients, apart from typing the WiFi password.

Post reply on HN