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

201–210 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#201

Post by stingraycharles »

toast0 wrote: post #195
stingraycharles wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah ok if you already live near one of their locations, then it makes sense. But in my case it would have to go through an entirely different country, which would be fairly inconvenient.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#202

Post by lwhi »

dijit wrote: post #190
post-it wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fi…

Maybe the solution is to make IPv4 prohibitively expensive.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#203

Post by gruez »

dijit wrote: post #190
post-it wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fi…

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech-

Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#204

Post by gruez »

inigyou wrote: post #82
spockz wrote: post #20

Meanwhile T-Mobile/Odido in the Netherlands is still not supporting IPv6 despite promising to have been working on it for years. Ubiquity gateways also seem to not support it sadly. It would be awesome if they supported something like Hurricane Electric’s tunneling.

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.

>Every ISP has to pay Hurricane Electric for their tunnels, that's why it's free to you.

Is there a law mandating this?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#205

Post by toast0 »

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.

Comcast does IPv6 (in most areas, at least), AT&T does IPv6 (was 6rd when I was a customer), CenturyLink (or whatever they're called today) had 6rd on DSL when I was a customer... and it made their CPE do terrible things so it needed to be disabled, but it was offered. My muni fiber ISP offers 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.

That was probably a reasonable take 15 years ago. But we're at 50% v6 globally, and the ISPs that are doing v6 + cgnat would not want to move all that v6 traffic to cgnat. v6 traffic is managed with stateless routing; cgnat is stateful and costly.

There are many lessons that can be learned, but v4 only is not the future. v6 only might never happen... people are going to keep running old software in emulation that will never support v6... But global routability of v4 will likely end one day. And I'd suspect the tail of the migration will be much shorter than the head was.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#206

Post by dijit »

gruez wrote: post #203
dijit wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fi…

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

The sheer amount of times Airdrop has been the "best" way to share files takes away from your point a bit.

It's almost always faster than anything else available, and ipv6 would make that method of sending files closer to the default for most people.

Having VOIP in games or 1v1 lobbies is, in the strictest sense, "hosting" something in the same way.

FD: I work in video games so I speak from this bias.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#207

Post by zinekeller »

throw0101a wrote: post #155
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…

> 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…

Without disputing the added latency of CGNAT, the v6-only peering fights (not just the infamous Cogent-HE dispute but smaller regional ISPs peering only on v4) means that there are indeed cases where v6 is worse than v4 in practice. Again, nothing inherently wrong with v6 itself, but peering disputes means bad latency on v6, which means that protocols relying on TCP (like plain FTP, SFTP and rsync) really takes a hit in transfer speeds.

Also there are cases where the ISP didn't bother even optimizing their routing in v6. I understand that some ISPs in Asia (and especially in Japan, where it shows up on ordinary customers in terms like MAP-E and VNEs) have separate backplanes for v4 and v6 (some are legacy reasons, some are business reasons). Guess which one is being devoted more in practice (hint: not the one being devoted more by IETF).

Edit: I thought this was just in Asia, but apparently this is also the case in an ISP in UK (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48618403)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#208

Post by tormeh »

inigyou wrote: post #94
tormeh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accidentally became the user of an IPv6-only device a while back for some obscure reason I never could figure out. Let me tell you: There are no IPv6-only users. Absolutely nothing except Google, Facebook, and YouTube works. Any website not in the top 20 are IPv4-only. It was so bad I briefly thought I didn't have an internet connection at all. Anyone stuck on an IPv6-only connection would immediately cancel their…

So, like, the three most popular things still worked. I wonder if working more is related to their popularity.

I think it's more that Google and Meta have the surplus engineering resources to implement IPv6 for what is essentially no reason.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#209

Post by throw0101a »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #69
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…

While true, neither of those are relevant in context (and I even explicitly acknowledged your first bullet in my comment above). It was suggested that a website operator deploying IPv6 would somehow improve the end user experience by virtue of avoiding CGNAT and I was questioning that. I do of course appreciate that going via CGNAT to a clueless operator that eagerly adds IPv4 bans can be problematic but that's more…

> It was suggested that a website operator deploying IPv6 would somehow improve the end user experience by virtue of avoiding CGNAT and I was questioning that.

Non-legacy, newly formed ISPs have to spend a lot of money on either buying or leasing IPv4 address space, and even then if they grow they probably won't be able to keep up, and so have to deploy 100.64.0.0/10 to the WAN interface of CPEs and then buy a bunch of CG-NAT hardware.

The problems are on not entirely visible at the end-user side of things because of the Herculean efforts by ISPs.

IPv4-only services are thus externalizing the costs of connectivity to ISPs (especially newly formed ones).

Post reply on HN