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

81–90 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#81

Post by inigyou »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #73
mimsee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Everything that's needed besides letting computers talk to each other, that is.

With ipv4 you have a two tier internet. Computers talk to servers, servers talk to servers, computers can't talk to computers so every video call must be routed through a server.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#82

Post by inigyou »

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.

Every ISP has to pay Hurricane Electric for their tunnels, that's why it's free to you. If enough people start using HE tunnels, ISPs will get native IPv6.

But you can't use HE tunnels because every website you visit will block you. You also can't use them from CGNAT or if your home router doesn't have a DMZ.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#83

Post by tormeh »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #70
skywhopper wrote: post #15

I’ve yet to live anywhere where the available mainstream ISPs were willing or able to provide IPv6 service. I’d be happy to use it, if I were able. I also have built cloud infrastructure for multiple SaaS providers with tens of thousands of customers over the past decade. Only one customer I’m aware of has ever even requested IPv6 support. And if customers aren’t asking for it, my employers have never been interested…

I'm interested, apart from the chicken egg problem, what are things that you found bad about IPv6. What do you think is overengineered? I personally found that the features I interacted with were useful (SLAAC, address size, router advertisements, ...) and the changes made it cleaner (removal of broadcast for multicast, removal of fragmentation fields, ...).

> apart from the chicken egg problem

"But other than that, Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#84

Post by gucci-on-fleek »

skywhopper wrote: post #15

I’ve yet to live anywhere where the available mainstream ISPs were willing or able to provide IPv6 service. I’d be happy to use it, if I were able. I also have built cloud infrastructure for multiple SaaS providers with tens of thousands of customers over the past decade. Only one customer I’m aware of has ever even requested IPv6 support. And if customers aren’t asking for it, my employers have never been interested…

> I’ve always found IPv6 to be overengineered and in many ways completely ridiculous.

Most software continues to have horrible IPv6 support and documentation making it look more complicated, but the actual protocol is considerably simpler than IPv4. For example:

1. An IPv4 packet header is variable-length, and the checksum must be recalculated by every router because the TTL is included in the checksum. Whereas an IPv6 packet header is fixed-length and has no checksum.

2. NAT is effectively required with IPv4, but it makes everything much more complicated, since it means that most computers don't even know their "real" IP address, it makes peer-to-peer networking very challenging, and it's tricky for routers to implement. Whereas with IPv6, no NAT is required.

3. Any router along the network path is allowed to fragment an IPv4 packet, and is in fact required to if its MTU is smaller than the packet's size. Whereas only the originating node is allowed to fragment an IPv6 packet.

4. To acquire an IPv4 address, both clients and routers must implement DHCP, which is a fairly complicated protocol, and both clients and routers must remember the list of assigned addresses. Whereas with IPv6, the client can just choose a random address (via SLAAC) and then start using it immediately.

5. IPv6 multicast is considerably simpler than IPv4 multicast, and NDP (v6) is considerably simpler than ARP (v4).

Despite all this, I agree with you that setting up IPv6 networking is harder than setting up IPv4 networking, but this is more of a software problem than a protocol problem.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#85

Post by inigyou »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #79
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 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.

Note that most ISPs are cellphone networks and most end devices are cellphones.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#86

Post by lxgr »

jmyeet wrote: post #36
coldstartops wrote: post #14

Google hits 50% IPv6, very good for accessing websites. But my TP-Link router blocks by default inbound IPv6 connections, without any option to configure it, still bad for pure IPv6 bidirectional streaming, gaming or services on home networks.

All these systems are a reflection of the time that they were designed. IPv6 is 30 years old. At that time a lot of threats just didn't exist. One of my favorite is the decision to default to /64 blocks. There was a time when the designers believed that you'd use your 48 bit MAC address as part of this. Now we know that's a PII nightmare and nobody does it. Yet we're still stuck with the 128 bit addresses that came f…

The point of local networks of a minimum size of 64 bit isn't only to have MAC-based addresses (48 bit would have been enough for that, fwiw), but in general to support non-coordinated/probabilistic self-assignment schemes with negligible collision probability.

Picking a random local address (which is very important for privacy, as you've mentioned) is much easier if you don't have to do an elaborate dance of listen, announce, listen for collisions etc. first (practically that still happens, but collisions are the absolute exception).

> So is the bigger address range better?

Yes, because consider the alternative of re-doing all of this again in a future in which IP usage for some reason jumps by a few orders of magnitude again.

Due to hardware getting better over time, the per-packet cost of a few extra bits is going down all the time, while the cost of rolling out a future IPv7 increases with every new deployed host.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#88

Post by inigyou »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #9
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?

I would expect online video games to be a more important driver.

and anything P2P. Maybe that would have been a driver 20 years ago, but now everything is expected to be centralised. Our culture has shifted. Remember when people used to host their game servers? If you're under 16, you don't because it was never in your lifetime.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#89

Post by lxgr »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #39
jmyeet wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these systems are a reflection of the time that they were designed. IPv6 is 30 years old. At that time a lot of threats just didn't exist. One of my favorite is the decision to default to /64 blocks. There was a time when the designers believed that you'd use your 48 bit MAC address as part of this. Now we know that's a PII nightmare and nobody does it. Yet we're still stuck with the 128 bit addresses that came f…

I don't think this is inherently a problem. It's good for home routers to have sensible defaults. Blocking incoming IPv6 connections is such a thing. Opening a port in the firewall shows the same kind of intent as forwarding a port with NAT. The burden is on the router manufacturers to expose these options in a sensible way. My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port fo…

> I don't think this is inherently a problem. [...] My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port for IPv6.

Glad to hear that you don't have a problem with your router, but how does that relate to GPs problems with theirs?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#90

Post by lxgr »

Cider9986 wrote: post #8

How does IPV6 affect ip blocking. As a VPN user I wish it wasn't used as a metric for sites shaking you down.

It's just as easy or hard to map out a VPN's egress subnets on v6 than it is on v4.
Post reply on HN