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

251–260 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#251

Post by inquirerGeneral »

dijit wrote: post #206
gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

[dead]

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#252

Post by lambdaone »

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.

The slow adoption of IPv6 by many older companies is at least in part a paradoxical result of the success of IPv6 elsewhere, particularly in new builds where there is practically no overhead in deploying IPv6 in a green-field environment - see for example the mobile telecoms market in developing countries, where new builds are IPv6-first.

This has taken pressure off the IPv4 legacy address pool, reducing the urgency for older providers.

End-users are typically completely unaware of whether their traffic is being carried over IPv6 or IPv4, and so simply do not care one way or the other. (This particular post is more than likely being made over IPv6, since news.ycombinator.com has an IPv6 address and my OS, browser, router and ISP all support IPv6 straight out of the box, as is now true for the majority of users in my country.)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#253

Post by wolvoleo »

I have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia.

I wish they had just made an IPv5 though. With e.g. 6 bytes instead of 4. 65535 times the current internet should be plenty. I feel like IPv6 is overengineered and I'm glad it didn't take off yet. I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing.

If I ever do switch it on on my home network I'll probably use NAT on the router so I can still keep it exclusively IPv4 internally on the network.

I first learned about IPv6 when I was studying (1993) and I already felt like it was an overengineered monstrosity back then. They were campaigning like it would be the internet next year. Well that aged well, lol. That's now 33 years ago.

I truly think that if they had made it simpler and more IPv4 compatible we would have been moved over in 2-3 years. But no they had to keep supporting this thing. Well, at this point I'm going to avoid playing ball as long as I can.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#254

Post by brador »

inigyou wrote: post #235
brador wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there’s no reason we should be limited to 128. It’s all just so dated and stagnant. Chips can be made that dwarf that limitation, instead we’re stuck with this decade old nonsense to “work around” again. Flip flopping between “the code needs it” and “the chips need it”.

How long should addresses be? 256 is good, lets you encode a whole ec25519 key. 512 for expandability? 1 megabyte for post-quantum?

Why cap it at all?

If you can process 512 then you get access to those, else you don’t.

Let the free market decide where it’s comfortable like it did with wireless security.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#256

Post by icedchai »

throw0101a wrote: post #233
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.

> 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. If I'm with a small-time ISP that has to use CG-NAT because they don't have the cash to buy/lease enough IPv4 addresses to give one to each CPE WAN interface, then using things like Xbox/PS multiplayer/P2P gaming is no longer possible. Want to host a Minecraft server? Too bad. Are thos…

You are right, but ISPs will tell you that you're not allowed to host servers anyway. Most have it in the AUP.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#257

Post by mkj »

inigyou wrote: post #105
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…

Actually no software rewrite is needed because the Berkeley Sockets API is agnostic to address format. If your software requires a particular address format, that's a bug. if you pass an IPv6 literal to getaddrinfo, you get a result with an IPv6 address structure and it tells you the IPv6 socket type you need to connect to it.

getaddrinfo was added after ipv6. Software had to be rewritten to use getaddrinfo.

Prior to that programs used gethostbyname() etc, which only works with ipv4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#258

Post by inigyou »

brador wrote: post #254
inigyou wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long should addresses be? 256 is good, lets you encode a whole ec25519 key. 512 for expandability? 1 megabyte for post-quantum?

Why cap it at all? If you can process 512 then you get access to those, else you don’t. Let the free market decide where it’s comfortable like it did with wireless security.

What good is a standard if it doesn't make devices interoperable?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#259

Post by wolvoleo »

djantje wrote: post #194
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?

They also got hacked recently and all their customer details were published.

PS: From the millions of customers' details leaked it sounds like their market share is a hell of a lot higher than 17%!

Post reply on HN