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

221–230 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#221

Post by inigyou »

jdw64 wrote: post #24

I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4

A lot of internet spambots and vulnerability scanners are v4 only. I discovered this when I found an open mail relay on v6, contacted the owner and he said it's been like that for ages due to a config mistake and he'd never heard a complaint. It wasn't an open relay on v4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#222

Post by inigyou »

gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #114
fc417fc802 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> While true, neither of those are relevant in context (and I even explicitly acknowledged your first bullet in my comment above). Yeah, I just mentioned that because P2P networking is used a lot more than most people think these days, since even things like Zoom that look like typical client–server web browsing actually use P2P networking internally. > It was suggested that a website operator deploying IPv6 would so…

If you're using a cloud you'll probably find it useful to have ipv6 on every server and ipv4 only on the front end gateway

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#223

Post by inigyou »

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

P2P protocols don't have much problem opening up a stateful firewall connection as you just have to send one packet out to open a known address and port.

I prefer to run scrapers behind CGNAT because websites can't ban it without causing collateral damage, which matters more to some than to others. The website probably has to put up a captcha. Which hurts its human traffic. Think about how much more traffic you could have if you didn't show everyone a captcha, and you might see that you should also be in favour of IPv6.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#224

Post by bebe83939 »

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)

[dead]

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#225

Post by throw0101a »

rvba wrote: post #17

Great example of how fixing things "the correct way" does not seem to work sometimes. They added those new addresses that can store more information.. but this requires a rewrite of old software to make it work. If they used the old >bolting on top< method by extending ip4 from 4 octets to 8 (or more) octets, then old software could be extended much easier too / probably addresses could be simply mechanically transla…

> If they used the old >bolting on top

In every fucking IPv6 thread this "just add more addresses" idea comes up. There is no "just" in expanding the address space:

"""

Whether you expand the address size to 33, 64 or 128 bits, all IPv4 implementations will discard the packets. So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means two things immediately:

1. You have to change the version number.

2. You have to add new code to handle the new version.

Furthermore, you don't want to split the Internet in two, so you must design a method of interworking between the old version and the new version. Annoyingly, you need to do that in a way that can be done completely in machines that know about the new version, because other machines don't know anything at all about the new version, by definition. So,

3. You need a coexistence technique so that updated systems, with the new protocol, can connect to old systems that know nothing of the new protocol.

Two minutes of thought show that this third requirement has only two solutions:

(3A) Dual stack, in which the new machines speak both the old (IPv4) and new (IPng) protocol.

(3B) Translation, in which something translates addresses between the old and new protocols.

This has been known for more than 30 years [RFC1671], although people still sometimes try to deny it.

"""

* https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/01.%20Introdu...

Any IPv4+ idea that "just" adds more address bits will same issues we've faced with IPv6.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#226

Post by ddtaylor »

coldstartops wrote: post #14

Google hits 50% IPv6, very good for accessing websites. But my TP-Link router blocks by default inbound IPv6 connections, without any option to configure it, still bad for pure IPv6 bidirectional streaming, gaming or services on home networks.

Not that it really matters because almost all the consumer roiter manufacturers are pretty bad, but TP-Link is really, really bad. I would highly recommend not using any of their hardware.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#227

Post by inigyou »

tormeh wrote: post #208
inigyou wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably for lower latency and higher reliability on mobile networks.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#229

Post by commandersaki »

throw0101a wrote: post #217
commandersaki wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: the…

NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point.

Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around.

As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest. When people talk about averting address exhaustion, they're not talking about internal addressing of networks, different problem altogether.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#230

Post by inigyou »

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.

The network isn't just the open internet. There's also the part inside the network. You can view Comcast as a black box that magically gets packets from one side to the other, but Comcast engineers can't.
Post reply on HN