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

71–80 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#71

Post by cge »

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 would be awesome if they supported something like Hurricane Electric’s tunneling.

HE tunnel IP space is now sufficiently penalized as non-residential/office that I’ve had to turn it off anyway. YouTube, for example, largely seems to block users in HE space unless they are logged in, and I frequently ran into neverending captchas.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#72

Post by Hendrikto »

tormeh wrote: post #64
Hendrikto wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I accidentally became the user of an IPv6-only device a while back for some obscure reason I never could figure out. Let me tell you: There are no IPv6-only users. Absolutely nothing except Google, Facebook, and YouTube works. Any website not in the top 20 are IPv4-only. It was so bad I briefly thought I didn't have an internet connection at all. Anyone stuck on an IPv6-only connection would immediately cancel their…

All the more reason to support it. There are lots of ISPs that only assign you an IPv6, and do hacky trickery to make IPv4 work over that. We wouldn’t need all of this.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#73

Post by hdgvhicv »

mimsee wrote: post #23
ThePhysicist wrote: post #16

Noooo, my /22 IPv4 subnet allocation is my personal 401k, I need this money to retire.

Time to cash in?

Prices have been coming down for years in nominal terms, let alone real terms. Cg nat does everything that’s needed, there are no significant ip6 only services, there are plenty of ip4 only services, so you have to support ip4 anyway, so why bother with ip6

My company has just turned off all ip6 connectivity for its corporate laptops because it’s considered a security risk. I disagree, but I do agree that having 4 and 6 is a higher risk than 4 alone or 6 alone, and 6 alone sadly still doesn’t work reliably.

All the “promise” of ip6, direct connections etc, were lost when stateful firewalls became required and memory became cheaper than $20 a megabyte. Some bespoke old protocols don’t like ports changing, which can be a problem, but it’s a very small number and easier to work around with modern protocols than support a dual stack environment securely for the majority of places that struggle securing a single stack.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#74

Post by charcircuit »

In America I've never had a non-mobile ISP offer IPv6. At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration. IPv6 will never reach the 100% needed to turn off IPv4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#75

Post by BrandoElFollito »

lloeki wrote: post #66
Leonard_of_Q wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, France has 99% IPv6 deployment through both mobile and landline these days https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/ipv6/Arc... (2025, from 2024 data) Reason that Google isn't seeing more is a) some BigCo v4 holdouts b) happy eyeballs sometimes landing on v4 because their v6 is shitty 6rd or something (e.g Free SAS)

You mean that Free's ipv6 is not implemented correctly?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#76

Post by brador »

2026. Literally no reason to be using this outdated limited addressing.

New regex: IP(any collection of numbers and dots).

Now we have infinite IP address possibilities and no one controls the space.

Done.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#77

Post by VorpalWay »

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.

I have yet to see any ISP use CGNAT here in Sweden. It seems to be a highly regional problem for some reason. Both on mobile and on broadband I get publicly routable IPv4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#78

Post by lxgr »

jck86 wrote: post #60
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.

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…

> 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.

Do you have examples for this? I've never experienced this, and I've been using IPv6 for years.

Also, how can you be sure that the same request to IPv4 would have been fine? Did you actually see consistent failures on v6 and consistent success on v4? Otherwise, if a service has a reasonably low error rate, success on retry is the expected outcome, regardless of the path the retry takes.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#79

Post by hdgvhicv »

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.

That depends on your isp. Mine certainly doesn’t, and I’ve never had an isp on the U.K. which didn’t give me at least a dynamic ipv4 address to my router.

Infact the only isp I have seen do it is starlink and I have contacts with ISPs in 60 different counties.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#80

Post by tormeh »

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.

This stuff is obvious now, but I think back then this was probably quite clever.
Post reply on HN