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

191–200 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#191

Post by gertrunde »

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…

I once asked them if we could enable IPv6 on a 1Gb DIA circuit, and the response I got back was that "we can convert the circuit to IPv6, but you'll need to give up your IPv4."

I don't think I bothered asking them again!!

(Edit "them" = Virgin Media)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#192

Post by Hizonner »

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.

Actually not as much point now.

The reason to regulate in maybe 2000 or so was that staying with IPv4 led to NAT. NAT led to it being impossible for users to receive incoming connections. Inability to receive incoming connections led to (a) horrendous protocol complexity, (b) probably some applications never even being invented, and, (c) everybody using ultra-centralized services. Ultra-centralized services led to advertising-driven distortions of service utility, concentration of political and economic power, and choke points. Choke points led to surveillance state bullshit that's just fully ripening today.

And, yes, this was (in broad outline) foreseeable in 2000. I wasn't the only one.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#193

Post by CrLf »

hugodan wrote: post #187

In Portugal one of the biggest ISPs (NOS) still does not have IPv6

That's not exactly true, they've been increasing in the last few months and are close to 30% now. Let's hope they don't revert it like one year ago.

This graph even shows them doing step deployments:

https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage/as2860?dateR...

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#194

Post by djantje »

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…

In NL we have this one: https://heeftodidoipv6.nl

Their core network has IPv6, but not their customers, 17% market share in telecom in the Netherlands.

Are there more?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#195

Post by toast0 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #102
inigyou wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every ISP has to pay Hurricane Electric for their tunnels, that's why it's free to you. If enough people start using HE tunnels, ISPs will get native IPv6. But you can't use HE tunnels because every website you visit will block you. You also can't use them from CGNAT or if your home router doesn't have a DMZ.

And wouldn’t it add a considerable latency?

It won't add much if you pick an appropriate tunnel server.

All my packets go through Seattle, using a Seattle tunnel server adds negligble latency.

But as someone else said, being connected with an he.net tunnel gets you marked as undesirable traffic these days, so that's annoying.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#196

Post by sleepydog »

stingraycharles wrote: post #102
inigyou wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every ISP has to pay Hurricane Electric for their tunnels, that's why it's free to you. If enough people start using HE tunnels, ISPs will get native IPv6. But you can't use HE tunnels because every website you visit will block you. You also can't use them from CGNAT or if your home router doesn't have a DMZ.

And wouldn’t it add a considerable latency?

HE has a lot of points of presence in North America and Europe: https://pop.he.net/ , so latency should be negligible there. Elsewhere, yes you might see higher latency.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#197

Post by theandrewbailey »

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.

I've had IPv6 addresses on Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon FIOS.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#198

Post by kalleboo »

CrLf wrote: post #68

Cloudflare sees over 40%, and it hasn't gone up in the last year even with the overall traffic increase. Personally, as the APNIC article also says about their own observations, I guess the overall adoption is somewhere in between. https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6 But we have to remember that this reflects the adoption on the client side. With many high profile services still IPv4-only, th…

If we're looking at the portion of traffic, most of the big bandwidth heavy services (the video streaming sites and CDNs) are on IPv6, the long tail of IPv4-only services tend to be lower bandwidth stuff.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#199

Post by CrLf »

mritzmann wrote: post #7
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?

> a better web experience than IPv4 That's already the case. IPv6 is often faster because most ISPs these days use cgnat for IPv4.

When CGNAT is present, my guess is that's the case. It would be nice to see a study on that; don't know if there is one already.

Users doing speed tests in CGNAT may be seeing numbers that aren't exactly real for a (still) mostly IPv4 Internet.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#200

Post by toast0 »

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…

Open source download mirrors often have much better targetting for v4 than v6. Just a few days ago, I was downloading installer images to check an issue and adding -4 to the command line reduced the download time significantly.
Post reply on HN