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

481–490 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#481

Post by cyberax »

toast0 wrote: post #321
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…

> 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…

IPv4 allows fragmentation by the middleboxes, which in practice papers around a lot of PMTU issues.

The IPv6 failing was not taking advantage of the new protocol to properly engineer fragmentation handling. But wait, there's more! IPv6 also has braindead extension headers that require routers to do expensive pointer chasing, so packets with them are just dropped in the public Net. So we are stuck with the current mess without any way to fix it.

People are trying: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9268/ but it's futile. It's waaaay too late and too fundamental.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#482

Post by crest »

kalleboo wrote: post #150
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-…

It's not just mobile networking but residential ISPs in general have better IPv6 support. In the US, Comcast was one of the first big IPv6 deployments, in Europe CGNAT+IPv6 is common in many places. Meanwhile corporate IT for business and education networks have less incentive to upgrade and typically lag behind in adoption in general.

I've been running full dual stack for >15 years now. It has become second nature by now and I'm slowly testing IPv6 mostly, but so far it's just easier to deliver dual-stack to all users instead of dealing with workarounds to make the last few non-IPv6 capable services work without native IPv4.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#483

Post by ck2 »

forgive dumb question but what happens when someone on IPv6 without IPv4 tunnel visits a URL with only a IPv4 endpoint?

like say

* https://1.1.1.1/cdn-cgi/trace

vs

* https://one.one.one.one/cdn-cgi/trace

When ipv6 threads like this come up, someone eventually mentions T-Mobile is completely IPv6 now but they must have IPv4 tunnels because I have IPv4 turned off on my modem/router and can still visit both those URLS

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#484

Post by themafia »

kortilla wrote: post #116
themafia wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast, one of the largest residential ISPs in the USA, has almost full IPv6 deployment by default. The majority Verizon Wireless is IPv6 by default. Residential customers in the USA have great access if they just enable the stack. There is nothing about IPv6 that prevents ISPs from filtering ports for all customers. They almost all actively filter at least port 25, 139 and 445 regardless of the actual transport. So…

A UN priority!? They have real issues they should be dealing with like the life and death of millions of people

I think it's fine if they have more than one priority.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#485

Post by ButlerianJihad »

Dagger2 wrote: post #272
ButlerianJihad wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“copy paste the output” is your solution? You think this somehow scales to manage entire networks like this with dynamic addressing? Do you perceive a network admin as a monkey who copy-pastes things all day?

This is exactly the absurd non-solution I am referring to, and it seems like if someone dismisses this with “one line instruction is all u need lol” they cannot even comprehend the scale at which real life operates.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#486

Post by mmbleh »

agwa wrote: post #411
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Tuna-Fish is correct that "most" of the IPv4 world is behind CGNAT ~60%+ of internet traffic is mobile, which is ~100% behind CGNAT. On desktop, only ~20% of US and European web traffic uses CGNAT, but in China that number is ~80%, in India ~70% and varies among African countries but is typically well over 70%, with it being essentially universal in some countries. Overall, something a bit over 80% of…

Oh wow, thanks for those numbers! Since mmbleh mentioned Linode I'm guessing they're more concerned with traffic from servers, where CGNAT is uncommon. But even that may be changing - https://blog.exe.dev/ssh-host-header

Yeah, our traffic is more from automated systems/servers, nothing from mobile

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#487

Post by UltraSane »

icedchai wrote: post #188
lmm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has something like 80% of the world's IPv4 addresses, so they feel a lot less pressure to migrate.

I’ve worked for a company that was barely using its /16. I know several individuals, including myself, with personal /24s.

A /24 is currently worth between $5,000 and $9,000 USD. Did you get them a long time ago?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#488

Post by ButlerianJihad »

icedchai wrote: post #188
lmm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has something like 80% of the world's IPv4 addresses, so they feel a lot less pressure to migrate.

I’ve worked for a company that was barely using its /16. I know several individuals, including myself, with personal /24s.

I recently released a /24 that I registered in 1992 and I hadn’t realized it was still mine.

ARIN was gonna charge me $100 to authenticate and recover the account, but once I asserted and notarized my letter of relinquishment, the process went real quick!

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#489

Post by anilakar »

torcete wrote: post #467
anilakar wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Depends on the degrees of separation between you and the draft author.

I guess we both agree that both humor and sarcasm are difficult to convey on the internet and LLMs do not make the job any easier :-)

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#490

Post by Dagger2 »

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.

How so? The same working group published e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1933, and it's hard to see how v6 could have been designed for backwards compatibility in ways that it wasn't already.

I've asked lots of people to describe a more backwards-compatible design, and generally the best they can manage is to copy the way v6 does things, ending up with the same problems v6 has. This has happened so often that the only reasonable conclusion is that it can't really be done any better than it was.

Post reply on HN