When I set up a "pure" (not really) IPv6 server, was surprised that Github does not support it. Without the voluntary operations listed at https://nat64.xyz/ , they'd be unreachable from IPv6.
Google Hits 50% IPv6
161–170 of 496 posts
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#162When I set up a "pure" (not really) IPv6 server, was surprised that Github does not support it. Without the voluntary operations listed at https://nat64.xyz/ , they'd be unreachable from IPv6.
And the Internet routes around a problem, yet again.
Good example of the 2020s on why there is practically truly only one Internet instead of many.
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#163Earlier 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…
> but every IPv6 setup that I've seen still gives every device a unique globally-routable IPv6 address, with no NAT at all.
Mine all have link-local addresses (I do have a real static IPv6 address block from my ISP, at great expense…) - so I’m not sure what I did wrong in my Ubiquiti gear.
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#164> 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.
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#165Earlier 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…
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.
I don't expect any ISP to do IPv6 today and deploy routers with a flow label bug... Those types of bugs no longer go unnoticed.
IPv6-only ISPs might hit other issues, though. They have to bridge to IPv4 somewhere.
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#166Still not fit for purpose.
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#167Earlier 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…
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 secu…
> 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?
Yup [0].
> How is that different from setting a “don’t fragment” option on a router.
It's the exact same, of course with the difference that it's the default and that nothing needs to support packets with the “don’t fragment” option disabled (since it's mandatory).
> And v4 has the 169.254 range for this purpose.
Sure, but seeing 169.254.x.x usually means that something is broken, while seeing IPv6 link-local address is perfectly normal.
> 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.
Well it's part of the reason why 802.11 tries so hard to pretend that it's Ethernet, and I've seen ARP storms a few times but never any NDP storms.
> but given almost every v6 deployment for the last 30 years is dual stack all it does is increase complexity.
Yeah, IPv6 is great, but dual-stack is fairly annoying, and given that IPv4 is the older protocol and still essentially mandatory, I definitely get why people dislike IPv6 (even when it's really IPv4 that's the problem).
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Those phones are reaching half the internet via 64 gateways, no difference to reaching via 44 gateways.
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#169I 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?
> a better web experience than IPv4 That's already the case. IPv6 is often faster because most ISPs these days use cgnat for IPv4.
Sparing a few hundred microseconds of latency is tangibly a better experience?
Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
That fraction of a millisecond doesn't meaningfully translate into a better experience for users.
Milliseconds matter for gaming, for example.
We are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligible at best, or at worst let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).