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

151–160 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#151

Post by calgoo »

Scroll_Swe wrote: post #128
throw0101a wrote: post #121

Specifically on weekends, which seems to indicate that it's the corporate/business network side of things that is not bothering with implementing it.

You frame "not bothering" as if its a checkbox with "enable IPv6" to check and all done... Put all work into reorg, for what? Some numbers to change? Why when IPv4 works?

The corporate world tend to be easy to do, just put a gateway to IPv6 on their zScaler (or similar) exit points and done. However, that is not really needed as they are "only" consuming a few IPs around the world (for that purpose). No one in the corporate world wants to go back to the days of Public IPs on all devices. Internally the enterprises have no reason to switch as it just complicates their setups.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#152

Post by CrLf »

Levitating wrote: post #106
CrLf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most of what people see as "SELinux" is actually the default policy, which started out as way too strict. Then SELinux-enabled distros such as Red Hat moved to a policy that only applies to system services, and leaves user-launched binaries as if SELinux was disabled.

And even for system services, you can disable SELinux for one service (permissive mode) and leave it enabled for the rest.

This has been the case for more than 10 years, but the damage was done. It's now very hard for users even considering learning the basics (which are not hard).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#153

Post by gucci-on-fleek »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #124
gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Peer-to-peer networking won't usually work correctly. And quite a bit of software uses P2P networking these days---BitTorrent, Zoom/Teams (via WebRTC), Tailscale, PlayStation/Xbox multiplayer, etc. Most of these services have automatic fallbacks when P2P networking doesn't work, but these fallbacks are usually slower and less reliable. 2. Most websites assume that 1 IPv4 address==1 household, so you'll often run i…

1) my stateful firewall is going to break most of that anyway 2) if cg nat is as popular as people claim then they won’t be doing that as it’s not an edge case

> 1) my stateful firewall is going to break most of that anyway

Stateful firewalls and even regular NAT aren't much of an issue for P2P, but CGNAT is much more problematic [0].

> 2) if cg nat is as popular as people claim then they won’t be doing that as it’s not an edge case

You'd hope, but people tend to be pretty slow to update their networking assumptions, so this is still pretty common. And it doesn't help that most CGNAT users tend to be either from poorer, since poorer countries and mobile data providers are far more likely to use CGNAT than legacy North American ISPs.

[0]: https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#154

Post by brador »

codingdave wrote: post #147
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.

And there’s no reason we should be limited to 128. It’s all just so dated and stagnant.

Chips can be made that dwarf that limitation, instead we’re stuck with this decade old nonsense to “work around” again.

Flip flopping between “the code needs it” and “the chips need it”.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#155

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> In my experience not true in practice cause I have experienced way more issues with the IPv6 endpoints of sites than their IPv4 counterparts.

If you've ever visited a website from your smartphone (over 4G/5G), your first hop has in all likelihood been over IPv6. If you have visited a website from your phone that only had an A record then you probably went through a CG-NAT box, which added latency.

If you streamed a Youtube video to your phone, or checked Gmail, or Instagram or Facebook, then it was over IPv6.

People (including probably you) use IPv6 everyday, multiple times, without knowing it.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#156

Post by wongogue »

anunay03 wrote: post #104
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.

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.

Even smaller ISP have done that. But I switched to JioFiber last year and it loses its IPv6 network every week for a few hours. Diagnostics tell me that everything is okay and the customer support just doesn’t understand the problem.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#157

Post by throw0101a »

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.

> IPv6 will never reach the 100% needed to turn off IPv4.

As was predicted in 1994:

      Furthermore, we note that, in all probability, there will be IPv4
      hosts on the Internet effectively forever.  IPng must provide
      mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng
      has become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet.
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726#section-5.5

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#158

Post by globular-toast »

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…

15 years is plenty of time to switch away from them. IPv6 is just one reason. It's a shit ISP. I ditched them as soon as I could and cited IPv6 as a reason, in case it made a difference (I also questioned my new ISP before I joined).

Virgin Media exist for two reasons: first they were given a monopoly by their Tory chums (Thatcher) and, second, all ISPs are allowed to make you sign absurdly long, anti-competitive contracts (18 months is common). If ISPs were treated the same as utility suppliers we'd probably be in a better place.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#160

Post by throw0101a »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #141
lxgr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

How would several billion smartphones be able to connect to the Internet without IPv6?

There isn't enough RFC 1918 (or 100.64.0.0/10) space for IPv4-only to be practical: Comcast—not even mobile—went to IPv6 because running their TR-069 management over multiple 10/8 became untenable.

IPv6 is making all sorts of things possible without most people realizing it.

Post reply on HN