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

271–280 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#271

Post by newsoftheday »

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.

> But my TP-Link router blocks by default inbound IPv6 connections

I selfhost web and email over my Wireguard VPN using a free VPS (at OCI but I did it with AWS Lightsail too, though it wasn't free but cheap). This can work for you too or you can use easier to configure solutions like Tailscale. This way, your home isn't exposed directly to the Internet.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#272

Post by NitpickLawyer »

TheDong wrote: post #119
ghusto wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this as a cited as a benefit of IPv6 a lot. Honest question: Isn't this at least a privacy issue, at most a security issue? SLAAC seems like what we already have with extra, breakable steps, which doesn't effectively address the privacy issue anyway.

Where's the privacy issue? That the server can figure out that two computers in the same house are different since your laptop and phone no longer share the same ipv4 address but instead have two ipv6 address? Your phone and laptop can just have multiple ipv6 addresses and rotate through them regularly... as apple does by default https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/seccb625dcd9/... Security? NAT is not a f…

> NAT is not a firewall,

I've only read that on HN, I've never heard this anywhere else. Since it's been a good 20+ years since my CCNA (and haven't needed to renew it since), could you please offer a real-world example where NAT is not a firewall w/ practical examples relating to 99.9% of cases of home use? I just can't get why people say this a lot here.

NAT works and passes the grandma test. If grandma buys a crappy vulnerable 40$ printer and plugs it in, even if it accepts unauthenticated stuff on every local port, you will not be able to connect to it behind NAT. So what's the difference? The only way I could think this can apply is if the ISP is compromised or criminally mismanaged, in which case you probably already have bigger problems.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#273

Post by BrandoElFollito »

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.

I am on Free (after a few years with Orange because Free could not bother to provide fiber here) but I am considering switching to Bouygues because I pay too much for the connection.

The connection is solid, though - thus my lack of enthusiasm.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#274

Post by lambdaone »

wolvoleo wrote: post #269
eddd-ddde wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. This is even easier with IPv6. At work we have a bunch of test devices, and you calculate the IPv6 from the device's serial number. Simple as that, no memorization at all.

But for an IPv4 device I only have to remember one number :) And nothing to do with a long random serial number.

::1, ::2, ::3, ::4... exactly how hard can that be?

Or if you're feeling playful, ::b0d, ::bed, ::dad, ::b1d...

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#275

Post by newsoftheday »

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

My selfhosted email has been dual stack for close to a year and my eyeball estimate of the logs is around 10% of the traffic is IPv6.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#276

Post by wolvoleo »

lambdaone wrote: post #270
wolvoleo wrote: post #253

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 swi…

A changeover to your IPv5 would be just as agonizing as the changeover to IPv6. A system with a larger address space is fundamentally uninteroperable with one with a smaller address space as there is nowhere to put the extra bits in the old protocol. The lack of motivation to move to the new protocol would also be just the same. And as for memorization: do you actually memorize MAC addresses for your interfaces? The…

Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill.

And the problem seems to be solving itself as the world is turning its back on globalism. China and North Korea already have separated themselves. Iran too. China still uses the same address space but it's not like there's open connectivity with the rest of the world. We'll probably cut off Russia at some point completely as part of some sanction (they've been preparing for that for years), and Europe will break with America if things continue. We'll just have interoperability at a few controlled border points then, like China already does with its great firewall. It'll be easy to do some address translation then.

Ps that's not something I'm necessarily happy about but I do see this trend emerging of every region trying to wall itself off.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#277

Post by wolvoleo »

lambdaone wrote: post #274
wolvoleo wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for an IPv4 device I only have to remember one number :) And nothing to do with a long random serial number.

::1, ::2, ::3, ::4... exactly how hard can that be? Or if you're feeling playful, ::b0d, ::bed, ::dad, ::b1d...

The prefix is too long and it's not the same at every site.

When I'm at a different location, the biggest problem is usually figuring out if they use 192.168.0 or 192.168.1 :)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#279

Post by heresie-dabord »

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…

After several decades, IPv6 has proven itself as a supplement to IPv4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#280

Post by p1mrx »

ddtaylor wrote: post #226
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.

TP-Link hardware is decent, if you buy one with OpenWrt support.
Post reply on HN