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

101–110 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#101

Post by inigyou »

CrLf wrote: post #35
xyst wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

UX issue, and UX issues are often downplayed by engineers, leading to adoption failures. Another such example is SELinux, which would have prevented so many vulnerabilities from being exploited, but whose poor UX also caused everyone to disable it at install time. SELinux's UX was significantly improved many years later, but already too late to change ingrained opinions. There are a lot of ingrained opinions about IP…

Conversely it means people who have ISPs that do IPv6 just have IPv6 and don't need to turn it off. Because it just works. The other day my IPv4 was down and I didn't even notice.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#102

Post by stingraycharles »

inigyou wrote: post #82
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.

And wouldn’t it add a considerable latency?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#104

Post by anunay03 »

Leonard_of_Q wrote: post #58
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.

I'd however mention, the two biggest ISPs that remain today both have adopted IPv6 on their fiber connections. They're also heavily using CGNAT for IPv4. It makes sense, the volume at which they're working makes dedicated IPv4 very uneconomical.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#105

Post by inigyou »

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…

Actually no software rewrite is needed because the Berkeley Sockets API is agnostic to address format. If your software requires a particular address format, that's a bug. if you pass an IPv6 literal to getaddrinfo, you get a result with an IPv6 address structure and it tells you the IPv6 socket type you need to connect to it.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#106

Post by Levitating »

CrLf wrote: post #35
xyst wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

UX issue, and UX issues are often downplayed by engineers, leading to adoption failures. Another such example is SELinux, which would have prevented so many vulnerabilities from being exploited, but whose poor UX also caused everyone to disable it at install time. SELinux's UX was significantly improved many years later, but already too late to change ingrained opinions. There are a lot of ingrained opinions about IP…

> SELinux's UX was significantly improved many years later

in what way?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#107

Post by inigyou »

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!!

Are you just talking about how you write the addresses or are you talking about the actual protocol?

The IPv4 protocol has 4 octets each for source and destination address. Period. If you change that, your packets won't work on any IPv4 routers or software any more.

If you want to write IPv6 addresses as numbers separated by dots no one's stopping you but I don't see how it's better. They switched to hex because the old format was too long.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#108

Post by ghusto »

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.

I hear this as a cited as a benefit of IPv6 a lot. Honest question: Isn't this at least a privacy issue, at most a security issue? SLAAC seems like what we already have with extra, breakable steps, which doesn't effectively address the privacy issue anyway.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#109

Post by hdgvhicv »

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…

You can do IPv6 only if you have a 64 nat on your edge and use dns64 and just use a limited set of applications and devices.

Some applications will still fail to work though unless you also have 46 nat on your device which still doesn’t work transparently on majority of types of device.

You also need all devices on your lan to support v6 natively, and v6 only. From your printer to your speaker.

You might be able to do something with mdns and nat64 to get them working on an IPv4 only subnet. But you’re talking layers and layers of complexity for things which just have to work.

I’m posting this from my phone on my IPv6 only subnet, not sure if it’s using a 64 gateway or 6 native to HN, but it’s possible.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#110

Post by inigyou »

ikari_pl wrote: post #93
inigyou wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. Letting anyone talk to anyone was the point of the internet. It's been co-opted by these massive centralising forces and you know what? They're right. With IPv4 everything has to be centralised, we don't even have the faintest chance to avoid it. With IPv6 at least we have a chance to take it back.

Some people will mention stateful firewalls. They're pretty easy to holepunch through because you just need each side to send a packet to the other, then each firewall sees it as an outgoing connection and allows it. It's nothing like IPv4 NAT.

Post reply on HN