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

51–60 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#51

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

noduerme wrote: post #25
rvba wrote: post #17

Great example of how fixing things "the correct way" does not seem to work sometimes. They added those new addresses that can store more information.. but this requires a rewrite of old software to make it work. If they used the old >bolting on top< method by extending ip4 from 4 octets to 8 (or more) octets, then old software could be extended much easier too / probably addresses could be simply mechanically transla…

I never heard this idea before, but more octets would be a lot prettier!!

They added 12 more octets. I mean we could have written IPv6 addresses in the old format but I don't think that

42.0.20.80.64.1.192.15.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.113

is easier to remember than

2a00:1450:4001:c0f::71 (or 2a00:1450:4001:0c0f:0000:0000:0000:0071)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#52

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

ash wrote: post #50
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 See djb's "IPv6 mess" article: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html Yes, it is old, many examples are outdated, but the main points still hold.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.

It's not a lot but it's better to be part of the solution than the problem even if it is an insignificant contribution.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#53

Post by ash »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #6
PacificSpecific wrote: post #5

First thing I do on a fresh Linux install is set ipv6 to deactivated. Fixes all my initial Linux install problems. I don't question it, it just works every time.

Something is very wrong with your network then. I never needed to disable IPv6. Maybe you should question it.

It is harder to maintain two networks instead of one. Potential problems double. Hacks like RFC8305 "Happy Eyeballs" become a must.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#54

Post by Hendrikto »

noduerme wrote: post #25
rvba wrote: post #17

Great example of how fixing things "the correct way" does not seem to work sometimes. They added those new addresses that can store more information.. but this requires a rewrite of old software to make it work. If they used the old >bolting on top< method by extending ip4 from 4 octets to 8 (or more) octets, then old software could be extended much easier too / probably addresses could be simply mechanically transla…

I never heard this idea before, but more octets would be a lot prettier!!

You have not heard if before, because that is the most naive and stupid take imaginable. It is the “let them eat cake” of networking.

It does not work like that. Put extra octets where exactly? Where would a hardware router put the extra bytes? Where would software with 32 bit buffers?

You would still need to replace all of the software and hardware and have the exact same problem.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#55

Post by gucci-on-fleek »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #42
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

1. Peer-to-peer networking won't usually work correctly. And quite a bit of software uses P2P networking these days---BitTorrent, Zoom/Teams (via WebRTC), Tailscale, PlayStation/Xbox multiplayer, etc. Most of these services have automatic fallbacks when P2P networking doesn't work, but these fallbacks are usually slower and less reliable.

2. Most websites assume that 1 IPv4 address==1 household, so you'll often run into rate limits. Or even worse, you might be blocked entirely if your CGNAT neighbours are spammers or otherwise breaking website rules.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#56

Post by shevy-java »

I want Google gone. This company is causing too many problems.

I am still sometimes using Google Search. First results are now almost always videos on youtube, aka self-promo. These videos are in 99.9% of the search results I use, totally useless and worthless. Even searching on youtube has recently gotten worse. It is also crap now. I know that because I bookmark various videos, and I can not find older videos anymore either. I can eliminate some results I don't care via ublock origin hero-blocking this Google garbage, but I really think we should no longer allow this de-facto monopoly to worsen the global situation any longer. The USA is protecting these gangsters - it is time to have true legislation that gets rid of that mafia bloc that is Google.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#58

Post by Leonard_of_Q »

mmwelt wrote: post #46

Interesting to see the per-country rates[1]. France is up to 85%, apparently! [1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

The more mobile traffic, the more IPv6. Have a look at India, it is not as if everyone has a fibre connection running IPv6.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#59

Post by b112 »

benjojo12 wrote: post #12
b112 wrote: post #3

And 32% is all llm/bots using AWS and other "pay for ipv4 IP" use cases.

As someone on the fighting end of scrapers, this is absolutely not true. If anything I should bais towards v6 as the traffic is on par better than v4

Google is having a real issue with LLMs using it for search. As in, real load issues. Unless you're running a publicly accessible search engine, and the top one at that, the LLM traffic you're seeing is not representative.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#60

Post by jck86 »

mritzmann wrote: post #7
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #4

I wonder if there will ever come a day when IPv6 will provide a better web experience than IPv4. At the moment pretty much every website is reachable via IPv4 but a lot not via IPv6. Will there be a day when this turns around?

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

In my experience not true in practice cause I have experienced way more issues with the IPv6 endpoints of sites than their IPv4 counterparts.

This becomes noticeable when pipelines on IPv6 connected servers suddenly have random request/post failures to public services. Then either the whole service is temporarily having issues or there are a few bad IPv6 endpoints while all the IPv4 endpoints are fine.

Seemingly this failure mode can go unnoticed for days while the same won't be true for IPv4 due IPv4-only still being the norm for corporate networks. And no, current form of happy eyeballs v2 won't account for this.

Besides bad endpoints it could also be a problem with bgp route advertisements where the IPv6 prefix takes a weird path and ends up being blocked by a CDN at the other side of the ocean. This happens more than you'd think. Obtaining pypi packages was quite a challenge last year for us for a couple of weeks due to this.

Not really a fault of IPv6 technology wise, and in general can be solved client side through retry functionality, but in practice it still can lead to a worse outcome due to lackluster IPv6 adoption.

I used to think ISPs, organisations, admins and users were just being lazy for not implementing IPv6 or turning it off as the first thing to do when network problems happen, but when this far in the rollout such basic things still lead to difficult troubleshooting sessions then perhaps time has come to say something has gone terribly wrong.

It saddens me to say that I totally understand that businesses do not want to pay the price for implementing IPv6 unless absolutely necessary, because until the majority of traffic is IPv6 or even IPv6-only it does not make a lot of sense.

The flipping point is nearer than ever, though I fear it will in the short term lead to even worse stability for both protocols until IPv6 truly becomes the norm, whenever that may be.

Post reply on HN