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

181–190 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#181

Post by somat »

inigyou wrote: post #110
ikari_pl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 si…

The comparison between a statefull firewall and NAT is often because they feel like they are doing the same thing from a mechanical point of view.

For example here is how to achieve the same result in PF, note the single additional operator needed to specify nat.

block in on $EXT_IF

#NAT

pass in on $INT_IF to any rdr-to $EXT_IF

#statefullfirewall

pass in on $INT_IF to any

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#182

Post by commandersaki »

throw0101a wrote: post #157
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

It was also predicted that the address exhaustion problem would be averted, in fact that was the purpose of v6. It failed to deliver.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#183

Post by Hizonner »

jonathantf2 wrote: post #143
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.

Right. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#184

Post by liveoneggs »

lxgr wrote: post #78
jck86 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Do you have examples for this? I've never experienced this, and I've been using IPv6 for years. Also, how can you be sure that the same request to IPv4 wo…

I saw HE stop routing to europe over ipv6 for an extended period of time two-ish years ago.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#185

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

rvba wrote: post #134
Hendrikto wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have not heard if before, because that is the most naive and stupid take imaginable. It is the “let them eat cake” of networking. It does not work like that. Put extra octets where exactly? Where would a hardware router put the extra bytes? Where would software with 32 bit buffers? You would still need to replace all of the software and hardware and have the exact same problem.

Your hardware can do Natural Address Translation. More octets is basically taking this idea further, to make a "big NAT".

You are aware that packets don't magically appear at the server side when sent by a client, right? All packets have to be routed to the destination by several routers. All these have to understand the full address to route the packet. The IPv4 header is strictly defined though. It says 32 bits for the source and 32 bits for the target. If you change anything about that all IP parsers will go haywire. If you put the information somewhere else, every router that doesn't understand that will send it somewhere else.

Every client, server, and router, every device that uses the address needs to understand where it comes from and where it's going. That means all the software needs to understand the protocol. So instead of having incompatible implementations live within the same protocol and make a lot of chaos it's better to have a new separate protocol that can be implemented gradually. Now the distinction is between having or not having IPv6 connectivity and my package on IPv4 goes no where because it hit a router that doesn't understand the extension.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#186

Post by post-it »

Hizonner wrote: post #183
jonathantf2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.

Of all the things to regulate why bother with this one? It's not like IPv6 is better for the environment or useful to the consumer.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#188

Post by AndrewDucker »

stcg wrote: post #118
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-...

Anyone know why there is a high frequency signal on top of the long term trend in that graph? https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

People connect from home more at the weekends and home ISPs support ipv6 more than offices do.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#189

Post by inigyou »

post-it wrote: post #186
Hizonner wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.

Of all the things to regulate why bother with this one? It's not like IPv6 is better for the environment or useful to the consumer.

It reduces the monopolization power of big cloud providers. This is especially relevant to countries that aren't the US, because it reduces reliance on the US.

It also just reduces resource waste (of labor time). Countries like China that have insufficient IPv4 addresses and political power have mandated it. One IP per home is manageable, for now, but CGNAT is really bad.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#190

Post by dijit »

post-it wrote: post #186
Hizonner wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.

Of all the things to regulate why bother with this one? It's not like IPv6 is better for the environment or useful to the consumer.

depends on how you look at it. Right now it's very much a tragedy of the commons.

IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- because it's a lot harder to make it work rather than throwing up a TURN box and relaying everything.

"The latency? Who cares? IPv6 sometimes breaks right now" - because nobody is testing it, so why should people be the first to support it? There's no easy upside.

The only real upside for businesses is not having to pay for increasingly expensive IPv4 allocations. But they don't really care, its not nearly expensive enough yet. Customers will get GCNAT, businesses will continue as normal.

All that will happen is that the internet gets slower and less equal.

Which is exactly the same thing that's happening with inefficient memory hungry software: people either have to buy a more expensive laptop or they have a shitty experience.. Nobody is advocating for them, they just feel things getting shittier year on year and many are just choosing to avoid technology instead.

Post reply on HN