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

501–510 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#501

Post by ok123456 »

boredatoms wrote: post #349
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…

Nothing stops you running a NAT for v6 too, its just people tend to choose not to when given the choice

I set up NAT66 recently with DHCPv6. The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are practically the same, except IPv6 has a prefix and a double colon as the last separator.

This really should be how SOHO routers do IPv6 out of the box.

Most people don't want 1:1 addressing for their entire home or office.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#502

Post by blueybingo »

worth noting that the google stat measures ipv6 availability among users who access google, not general internet traffic -- so it's a bit of a self-selecting sample skewed toward consumer isps that have deployed ipv6, which probaly overstates adoption for enterprise and datacenter traffic where the github situation is much more representative of reality.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#503

Post by Twirrim »

rekoil wrote: post #198
throw0101a wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. Especially given that it is now owned by Microsoft, which has been working on IPv6-only (at least on their corporate network) for almost a decade: * https://blog.apnic.net/2017/01/19/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/ * https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-...

I mean Azure doesn't really support IPv6 well either for a lot of the big-ticket services.

That seems weird given NIST, and the US Government, set a requirement for IPv6 Only back several years ago, and it sort-of became part of the JWCC requirements (It wasn't in the requirements, IIRC, because it came after those were set, but the government wouldn't fully approve use for JWCC if you didn't meet it).

You'd think they'd have sprinted for that feature as fast as they could go.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#504

Post by jeroenhd »

QuercusMax wrote: post #442
jeroenhd wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fin…

Localhost doesn't appear on autodiscovery. Whatever you ran into had nothing to do with IPv6, but rather with your application not binding to the address you were telling it to bind to. On IPv6, localhost binds to ::1, not anything reachable by any other address. Furthermore, whatever you set up automatically seems to have added itself to your server's firewall, which is equally troubling.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#505

Post by nextaccountic »

literalAardvark wrote: post #183
jeroenhd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They supported IPv6 for a short time, but then stopped their experiment. An excellent reason to move away from Github, I find.

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…

That's why ipv6 migration should be government mandated. Then it becomes just the cost of doing business

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#506

Post by Dylan16807 »

bananamogul wrote: post #410
RiverCrochet wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I've been hearing that those speculators were going to get out of control and the IPv4 price was going to skyrocket for 10+ years. Yet I can still rent a VPS with IPv4 for $12/year from a wide variety of providers.

You can, but a significant portion of that money is going toward paying off that IP.

"Skyrocket" is wrong but the market cap of IPv4 addresses is quite high.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#507

Post by GoblinSlayer »

throw0101d wrote: post #254
merpkz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does IP bans work in IPv6 case? One just blocks whole /64 or /56 address range?

I have not had a deal with this, but if I was going to, I would start at the /64 and move up by nibble (4-bit) boundaries: /64, /60, /56, /52, /48. /56 is often recommended as the minimum as for a (residential) customer. /48 is considered a "site" address prefix, and is the smallest allocation that can be advertised in BGP: * https://blog.apnic.net/2020/06/01/why-is-a-48-the-recommende... * https://www.infoblox.com/b…

APNIC blog says /48 prefixes are for global routing, i.e. site=country there, not web server.

>/48 is the minimum prefix size that will be routed globally in the BGP.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#508

Post by QuercusMax »

jeroenhd wrote: post #504
QuercusMax wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fin…

Localhost doesn't appear on autodiscovery. Whatever you ran into had nothing to do with IPv6, but rather with your application not binding to the address you were telling it to bind to. On IPv6, localhost binds to ::1, not anything reachable by any other address. Furthermore, whatever you set up automatically seems to have added itself to your server's firewall, which is equally troubling.

The address my clients were finding automatically was a link-local address (fe80...). Can't say exactly what happened but it was very surprising since I didn't even know these addresses existed.

I'm sure it's totally my fault but that's the point: folks who know how ipv4 works may have huge blind spots for ipv6.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#509

Post by thescriptkiddie »

nfriedly wrote: post #500

I just recently noticed that my ISP, Frontier, quietly turned on IPv6. I know it wasn't enabled back in December, so it has to have been sometime in the past few months.

interestingly my ISP, at&t, quietly turned off ipv6. not sure exactly when it happened, i should get around to complaining about it but i hate making phone calls
Post reply on HN