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

91–100 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#91

Post by inigyou »

gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #62
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…

> 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. Nobody includes their MAC address in their public IPv6 addresses anymore, but every IPv6 setup that I've seen still gives every device a unique globally-routable IPv6 address, with no NAT at all. > One of my favorite is the decision to default to /64 blocks. The…

With current addressing scheme we only have 2^13 times more site addresses than IPv4, which is plenty in absolute numbers, but not necessarily enough for more coarse aggregation, and definitely not infinitely future proof.

Crucially though, if we change it, we just have to change how addresses are allocated, not change the protocol again.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#93

Post by ikari_pl »

inigyou wrote: post #81
hdgvhicv wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And wasn't that THE POINT of the internet and it's decentralised design?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#94

Post by inigyou »

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…

So, like, the three most popular things still worked. I wonder if working more is related to their popularity.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#95

Post by lxgr »

charcircuit wrote: post #74

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.

And I've only ever had v6, both on DOCSIS and fiber. Both observations are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things; actual adoption rates are what matter.

> At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration.

That's a pretty wild thing to say in the comment section of an article about v6 reaching 50% eyeballs-side deployment.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#96

Post by jampekka »

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…

> 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.

I had a very concreteish security risk with IPv6 and openvpn. At least in Debian config openvpn tunneled only IPv4 by default. I only noticed this by being surprised I got results tailored to my origin country instead of the VPN out node country.

It's eternal (dual stack) paper cuts like this why just turning IPv6 off makes life a lot easier.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#97

Post by inigyou »

brador wrote: post #76

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.

What does a packet header look like?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#98

Post by inigyou »

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…

Did you call your ISP and ask? Some of them support it but won't enable it by default.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#99

Post by inigyou »

gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #84
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 IP…

The only one I don't understand is how NDP is simpler than ARP. ARP is an Ethernet broadcast while NDP is built on IPv6 multicast which creates a recursive chicken and egg situation.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#100

Post by hdgvhicv »

inigyou wrote: post #88
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have to open a hole in my firewall to host any service. Nat doesn’t change that.

Unless you want to host multiple minecraft servers on the same port on different servers at home?

Indeed hosting anything at home is such a rare workflow that someone wanting it can choose an isp which gives them the facilities they need.

Unless you don’t live in a competitive market based economy and just have the single government mandated isp aimed at the lowest common denominator, in which case you’ve got far worse problems.

Post reply on HN