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

211–220 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#211

Post by inigyou »

gertrunde wrote: post #191
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)

Sure they didn't just mean they'd change your static IPv4 address to a different one?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#212

Post by inigyou »

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.

Well yeah, because they can't. Maybe if they could, they would do it more. You probably wouldn't want to host a permanent website from home, although some people do, but you could share a file. It would be popular with game servers, too.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#213

Post by throw0101a »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #124
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…

1) my stateful firewall is going to break most of that anyway 2) if cg nat is as popular as people claim then they won’t be doing that as it’s not an edge case

> 1) my stateful firewall is going to break most of that anyway

Your CPE is probably running UPnP IGD and/or PCP for hole punching of P2P services, and IGD/PCP can hole punch just as easily for IPv6.

> 2) if cg nat is as popular as people claim then they won’t be doing that as it’s not an edge case

It's not whether CG-NAT is an edge case or not, it's whether there are things that are completely impossible with it or not. Want to play with your friends on your Xbox/PS? Too bad, CG-NAT makes it completely impossible.

Why should we be happy with a technology that makes certain use cases impossible? On what planet is that a good thing?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#214

Post by inigyou »

Hizonner wrote: post #192
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.

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 ad…

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago...

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#215

Post by inigyou »

sherburt3 wrote: post #210

Literally all we had to do was add a byte to IPv4 and we'd be done but noooo we need to overengineer the next protocol and make it as painful as possible to adopt.

Why one byte? Is that enough bytes? An extra 4 bits each for source and destination? Maxing out at 2^36 addresses? That seems uncomfortably small safety margin.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#216

Post by inigyou »

gruez wrote: post #204
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.

>Every ISP has to pay Hurricane Electric for their tunnels, that's why it's free to you. Is there a law mandating this?

Yes, it's called contract law. If you don't pay HE, you don't get a connection to them.

I forgot one detail: your ISP could pay a different tier-1 ISP, as they all interconnect. Nonetheless, your ISP pays top rates for that traffic - tier-1 routes are usually last-resort routes.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#217

Post by throw0101a »

commandersaki wrote: post #182
throw0101a wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

It was averted: how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet? Do you think that would have been practicable without IPv6?

Comcast—not even mobile—had to move to IPv6 on their landline ISP business because they ran out of IPv4 addresses for TR-069: they were using multiple 10/8 networks in different regions NATed to hide them from each other. IPv4 became untenable.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#218

Post by inigyou »

well_ackshually wrote: post #173
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#220

Post by throw0101a »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #168
throw0101a wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Those phones are reaching half the internet via 64 gateways, no difference to reaching via 44 gateways.

And how would they have gotten first-hop connectivity without IPv6?

Comcast added IPv6 many years ago on their wired ISP side because they ran out of IPv4 for TR-069 management, and they had way fewer subscribers (at least at the time) than many mobile telcos.

And that half of the Internet is also some of the most bandwidth intensive stuff: Youtube, Netflix, Instagram. The CG-NAT hardware costs of streaming would be huge.

Post reply on HN