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

491–500 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#491

Post by realityking »

RiverCrochet wrote: post #333
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 has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it It's fine. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used at the same time. There's no hurry. Network interfaces support anything as long as both sides agree (nothing stopping you from building your own IPX network over MPLS). People can move to IPv6 when the IPv4-as-real-estate speculators get out…

The Czech government has announced it’ll stop offering its services via IPv4 in June 2032.

Source https://konecipv4.cz/en/

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#492

Post by Dylan16807 »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #308
ViscountPenguin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because big tech is USA based mostly, where there's still a glut of ipv4 available.

IPv4 was exhausted at ARIN in 2011. Last time I bought a /24 on the open market, it was around $6k. I assume it is much more, now.

It's close to that right now. Prices more than doubled as covid set in, then dropped back down to about where they were before.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#493

Post by creatonez »

neitsab wrote: post #156

As a French national, I am surprised to discover we are topping the charts according to this analysis. Does anybody know why that might be the case? What's the story of IPv6 deployment in France?

This is probably not the real reason, but I find it interesting that France had Minitel (^1) before and later had to switch to the Internet, and then later became the fastest country to complete the IPv6 transition. So perhaps they had an engineering culture that was prepared for the possibility they would have to upgrade the entire network on a nationwide scale.

^1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#494

Post by Dagger2 »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #485
Dagger2 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$ 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 opera…

Copying and pasting was just my attempt to demonstrate how simple a v6 rDNS record is to add. If you were interested in hiring me to write a solution for your ISP, that's fine, but you can't seriously expect random people to do it for you for free in a HN comment.

It should be pretty obvious that a script can generate these records from the forward records or from any other source of IPs/hosts, with no per-address effort needed on the part of the network admins.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#495

Post by globular-toast »

IshKebab wrote: post #159
michh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a little tin foil hatty and definitely not the only reason but Microsoft owns Github and also makes a boatload of money off of Azure. Incumbent cloud providers like Azure have a major advantage in terms of having plenty of IPv4 addressing available whereas a new entrant to that market would have to buy or lease that space at a premium. Thus, these companies have an incentive to keep IPv4 a necessity.

IPv4 is going to be a necessity for many many decades no matter what Microsoft do. Even when IPv6 is at 99%, people aren't going to want 1 in every 100 people to not be able to access their site at all. It'll need to be like 99.9% before we start seeing serious IPv6-only services.

I don't buy that. Do Netflix or YouTube care that people on 56k can't use their service?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#496

Post by Dylan16807 »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #404
mmbleh wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If a single machine gets /64 and you rate limit by /64, what doesn't work? >Linode and others that do /64 for a whole data center That's how it's supposed to work.

> That's how it's supposed to work.

According to who?

It could fit best practices if your datacenter has one tenant and they want to put the entire thing on a single subnet? In general I would expect a datacenter to get something like a /48 minimum. Even home connections are supposed to get more than /64 allocated.

And Linode's default setup only gives each server a single /128. That's not how it's supposed to work. But you can request /64 or /56.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#497

Post by holowoodman »

cyberax wrote: post #470
holowoodman wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 actua…

Well, I can do that with OpenWRT, no idea which prosumer devices already implement this, but it isn't rocket science: Announce the Prefix of the currently active connection, invalidate the other one. Will interrupt all your TCP connections, but they are toast anyways, most software should handle this just fine. It's quite the same as a Wifi-to-Cellular handover.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#498

Post by ButlerianJihad »

Dagger2 wrote: post #494
ButlerianJihad wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 opera…

Copying and pasting was just my attempt to demonstrate how simple a v6 rDNS record is to add. If you were interested in hiring me to write a solution for your ISP, that's fine, but you can't seriously expect random people to do it for you for free in a HN comment. It should be pretty obvious that a script can generate these records from the forward records or from any other source of IPs/hosts, with no per-address ef…

Again, absolutely blind to the management of these things at scale. Yeah, I don't rightly care about "how easy it is" to generate them. You can't even comprehend or convey the massive number of records and zones that are involved in managing a network of devices that all require dynamic updates to reverse-DNS and add/update/remove device addresses on a regular basis.

DNS is a distributed database system, and so the challenge is not cramming in data with a brainless script, but managing how that data is distributed and accessed by thousands or millions of peer servers, caches, and clients worldwide.

IPv4 reverse-DNS was quite simple when it was broken on octet boundaries and there were only four of those boundaries in total. But even then, ISPs could often not be arsed to put the right data in there. Some left it blank and some waited until they were forced, by strict requirements that said reverse must match forward DNS in many cases.

I have never found any user-accessible software, not on any Linux distribution or on any cloud service, that would permit an ordinary consumer to manage even a /24 IPv4 network's reverse-DNS at scale, or programmatically, as opposed to by-hand "copy paste" as has been so condescendingly suggested here. There are plenty of hosted DNS providers, and there are plenty of monkey-brain Dashboard interfaces where you can pound out one A record at a time. But there was nothing to deal with dynamic addressing or DNS databases at scale. That's why IPv6's reverse DNS remains an absurd non-solution.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#499

Post by toast0 »

cyberax wrote: post #481
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…

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 mes…

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

In theory yes; but actual packets are 99%+ flagged DF. Reassembly is costly, so many servers drop fragmented packets, or have tiny reassembly buffers. Back when I ran a 10G download server, I would see about 2 fragmented packets per minute, unless I was getting DDoSed with chargen reflection, so I would use a very small reassembly buffer and that avoided me burning excessive cpu on garbage, while still trying to handle people with terrible networks.

Router fragmentation is also expensive and not fast path, so there's pretty limited capacity for in path fragmentation.

I think I agree with you, that RFC you linked seems awfully hopeful... unlikely to actually happen. Better endpoint probing is probably where we're going to end up. Or things like QUIC where if you don't have the required minimum MTU, too bad so sad.

Post reply on HN