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

141–150 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#141

Post by hdgvhicv »

lxgr wrote: post #95
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.

After 30 years, with 99% of servers and devices having been designed decades after ip6 was created, half of traffic is still ip4.

If that’s not a failure I hate to see what is.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#142

Post by TeMPOraL »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #100
inigyou wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

Or unless you do live in a competitive market based economy, and have a choice of several ISPs with practically equivalent offering aimed at the lowest common denominator, none of whom supports something niche like "giving you facilities for hosting stuff at home".

If there's one thing market competition does well, is remove any kind of meaningful variety - because supporting a niche offering costs money, and is not worth it unless it nets positive, otherwise it's just a drag that makes you fall behind your competition.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#143

Post by jonathantf2 »

JdeBP wrote: post #130

Just to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network…

Purely from a business perspective, for VM there is no point. They have more than enough v4 to keep them going, customers (outside of a tiny technical minority who probably wouldn't chose VM anyway) do not see any benefit.

That plus other ISPs v6 implementations breaking things randomly, I understand why they don't bother.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#144

Post by gucci-on-fleek »

inigyou wrote: post #99
gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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

ARP is a special protocol implemented on the data link layer, while NDP is just another type of ICMPv6 packet.

> which creates a recursive chicken and egg situation

I believe that NDP mostly uses the special ff02::/16 link-local multicast addresses [0], which don't require any configuration to use.

[0]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ip...

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#145

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> IPv6 doesn't have that intent, which forces home router makers do block addresses by default because you don't want most PCs on the Internet such that an external agent can scan your PC. You may end up with an unintended service on the open Internet.

Every residential router already has PCP (RFC 6887) and UPnP IGD to deal with the NAT44 non-sense that is the status quo, and both protocols support IPv6 hole punching, so IPv6 default deny as a policy is hardly an issue in the residential space.

MiniUPnPd, which many Linux-based CPEs use, has supported IGDv2 (needed for IPv6) since 2012 (as well as PCP).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#146

Post by hdgvhicv »

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…

2 is a security nightmare but that’s why firewalls prevent it by default

3 well you can set the dont fragment bit at a client side or a router can drop the packet. These are choices. If a 1500 byte IPv6 packet arrives on a router with an 1100 byte next hop, does it just drop? Or send back a fragmentation needed icmp? How is that different from setting a “don’t fragment” option on a router.

4 isn’t created from a security or management point of view either. And v4 has the 169.254 range for this purpose. I guess the lack of router advertisement is the primary difference. And the operational expectations.

5a I’m not sure about. My main experience with multicast is pim-sm on v4. SSM v4 multicast however seems simple, and while I don’t use it as I have kit that’s too old for it is v6 really easier than v4/ssm/igmp3?

As for arp, I don’t see any real complexity with it as a network operator, but maybe that’s because I’m used to it. Perhaps it’s easier to implement nd rather than arp, but given almost every v6 deployment for the last 30 years is dual stack all it does is increase complexity.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#147

Post by codingdave »

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.

Do you think routers perform their work using the human-readable addresses?

If so, that is incorrect. They use the binary values. The actual difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is that IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, not 32. So you can devise whatever human-readable abstraction you like, it won't change how networking actually operates.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#148

Post by VorpalWay »

inigyou wrote: post #115
VorpalWay wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's because Sweden joined the internet relatively early when enough addresses were available. It's like that in most 1st-world countries. Places like Argentina, on the other hand, may have to share 8 IPv4 addresses per city.

That makes sense. However, I also don't get IPv6 on either my broadband or my mobile. So we seem to be far behind there.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#149

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

rvba wrote: post #131
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Tell that via phone to your grandmother.

Why would I do that?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#150

Post by sznio »

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.

it's more like that the IPv6 switchover was so fumbled that we went from fast P2P like with Skype, to shitty, centralized and data-mined Discord.

The internet would be much less centralized if IPv6 happened when it was supposed to.

Post reply on HN