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

171–180 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#171

Post by gucci-on-fleek »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #163
gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A link-local address is required with IPv6, so your devices probably just have that in addition to a globally-routable IPv6 address. This isn't a problem though, since devices have no problem having lots of different addresses on the same interface [0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44773981

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#172

Post by commandersaki »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #52
ash wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, individual actions would never be enough to solve the IPv6 chicken and egg problem. See djb's "IPv6 mess" article: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html Yes, it is old, many examples are outdated, but the main points still hold. Decades later his suggestions for making IPv6 succeed are still not implemented.

It's not a lot but it's better to be part of the solution than the problem even if it is an insignificant contribution.

Which is which?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#173

Post by well_ackshually »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #75
lloeki wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, France has 99% IPv6 deployment through both mobile and landline these days https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/ipv6/Arc... (2025, from 2024 data) Reason that Google isn't seeing more is a) some BigCo v4 holdouts b) happy eyeballs sometimes landing on v4 because their v6 is shitty 6rd or something (e.g Free SAS)

You mean that Free's ipv6 is not implemented correctly?

Free has ipv6 enabled on 100% of their customers, and while sometimes their software has a few issues, it's working perfectly fine. People just get pissy because Free refuses to pay for peering with Google for e.g. Youtube, and it feels slower, even more on v6.

The only ISP not putting out v6 widely is SFR, and thankfully they've gone bankrupt and we will be rid of this scourge.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#174

Post by commandersaki »

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…

Considerably simpler? There's two ways (maybe more?) to autoconfigure v6 addresses on a host, I'll never know or remember which to use. In v4 there's DHCP, that's all you need to know (nobody uses BOOTP). These endless choices go on and on with v6 with umpteen transition technologies to work with v4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#175

Post by vbernat »

lloeki wrote: post #66
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.

Well, France has 99% IPv6 deployment through both mobile and landline these days https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/ipv6/Arc... (2025, from 2024 data) Reason that Google isn't seeing more is a) some BigCo v4 holdouts b) happy eyeballs sometimes landing on v4 because their v6 is shitty 6rd or something (e.g Free SAS)

6rd will soon get away to get native IPv6 instead. Also, 6rd is what allowed France to lead IPv6 deployment.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#176

Post by adithyassekhar »

Whenever I turn on ipv6 on my router (isp supports it, dual stack) randomly I get half the download speeds, YouTube video freezes, and eventually a captcha screen on google. The moment I disable v6 even only at the client side I get to max out my bandwidth. Tested on google drive, sites on azure and aws and netflix’s fast.com which show’s your ip just to confirm I was connecting over v6.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#178

Post by vbernat »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #4

I 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?

It already does. With IPv6, you don't go through some CGNAT box, that could misbehave or just break (and since the biggest chunk of content is available through IPv6, this may not be a priority). Also, a shared IPv4 can be banned by various sites if one of the owner misbehaves. This issue is not present with IPv6.

More on this: https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2024-why-ipv6

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#179

Post by gucci-on-fleek »

inigyou wrote: post #91
gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

Yup, and only less than an eighth of the total IPv6 address space has been allocated [0] [1], so there's still plenty of room to expand, even if we have to throw every current address out and start from scratch.

[0]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-add...

[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3513#section-4

Post reply on HN