Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Hits 50% IPv6

blog.apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#41

Post by Hendrikto »

jdw64 wrote: post #24

I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4

> Is IPv6 really that widely used?

Mobile carriers use it almost exclusively, which is already a huge chunk of the internet, and newer ISPs are switching to it too.

> I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is.

The benefit is that you allow IPv4-only and IPv6-only clients to connect.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#42

Post by fc417fc802 »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #29
jdw64 wrote: post #24

I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4

It's good to support it to resolve the chicken egg problem. If no service supports it, there is no sense in deploying it to the customers and the other way around. Also you made the life better of people who have DS lite. They only get a public IPv6 and all their IPv4 traffic goes through a CGNAT.

For client server web browsing what's the downside of CGNAT? I'd understand if we were talking about self hosting a service from home but for typical consumer usage?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#43

Post by jon-wood »

spockz wrote: post #20

Meanwhile T-Mobile/Odido in the Netherlands is still not supporting IPv6 despite promising to have been working on it for years. Ubiquity gateways also seem to not support it sadly. It would be awesome if they supported something like Hurricane Electric’s tunneling.

  $ curl -v https://news.ycombinator.com
  * Host news.ycombinator.com:443 was resolved.
  * IPv6: 2606:7100:1:67::26
  * IPv4: 209.216.230.207
  *   Trying [2606:7100:1:67::26]:443...
  * ALPN: curl offers h2,http/1.1
  * TLSv1.3 (OUT), TLS handshake, Client hello (1):
Works fine through a Ubiquiti gateway here.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#44

Post by kay_o »

spockz wrote: post #20

Meanwhile T-Mobile/Odido in the Netherlands is still not supporting IPv6 despite promising to have been working on it for years. Ubiquity gateways also seem to not support it sadly. It would be awesome if they supported something like Hurricane Electric’s tunneling.

It is entertaining that the situation becomes opposite in T-Mobile on States does not support IPv4 and only assigns IPv6 with 464xlat for "Fake-NAT" to IPv4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#45

Post by Hendrikto »

mort96 wrote: post #19
mritzmann wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a better web experience than IPv4 That's already the case. IPv6 is often faster because most ISPs these days use cgnat for IPv4.

That fraction of a millisecond doesn't meaningfully translate into a better experience for users.

Milliseconds matter for gaming, for example.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#47

Post by newsclues »

spockz wrote: post #20

Meanwhile T-Mobile/Odido in the Netherlands is still not supporting IPv6 despite promising to have been working on it for years. Ubiquity gateways also seem to not support it sadly. It would be awesome if they supported something like Hurricane Electric’s tunneling.

https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/36378535649687-Configu...

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#48

Post by jon-wood »

jdw64 wrote: post #24

I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4

When hosting a server IPv6 doesn't make a huge difference beyond your logs will probably be a bit more accurate, people behind CGNAT where an ISP has multiple customers sharing a block of IPv4 will show up with their actual IPv6 address. They'll maybe also find it slightly quicker because they're not being funnelled through NAT gateways but realistically not enough to notice.

From the user side IPv6 is great for me. My ISP is using CGNAT and would bill me ten pounds a month for a static IPv4 address but I automatically get a vast block of IPv6. I'm using that block to allow me to VPN back home when out and about, and if I wanted to I could also host services from devices on my home network without needing any NAT nonsense, I can just open access to the relevant device on the router. (Because this is a world where not everywhere supports IPv6 yet if I'm on an IPv4 only network the VPN endpoint is a dedicated server I rent which forwards the relevant port back to my home router over IPv6)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#50

Post by ash »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #29
jdw64 wrote: post #24

I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4

It's good to support it to resolve the chicken egg problem. If no service supports it, there is no sense in deploying it to the customers and the other way around. Also you made the life better of people who have DS lite. They only get a public IPv6 and all their IPv4 traffic goes through a CGNAT.

Unfortunately, individual actions would never be enough to solve the IPv6 chicken and egg problem. See djb's "IPv6 mess" article:

https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

Yes, it is old, many examples are outdated, but the main points still hold. Decades later his suggestions for making IPv6 succeed are still not implemented.

Post reply on HN