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

311–320 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#311

Post by mahboi »

throw0101a wrote: post #225
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 i…

Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly assigned 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default 7. give every device its own public IP by default. Ipv6 did those anyway.

Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 now. If anyone switches to the new thing, they know where to find me.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#312

Post by mschulkind »

gruez wrote: post #234
inigyou wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are we talking about the same thing here? I was thinking of https://tunnelbroker.net/ Obviously if the ISP is buying transit from HE, they'd have to pay for it, but it'd be surprising if HE was strongarming their customers by adding a clause that's like "oh also, if any of your customers use our ipv6 tunnel, we'll charge you $x/user/month" or whatever.

It really depends on the peering contract. Most are not for transit, but rather just destinations, and generally the side that sends more pays, so that means more traffic to HE if tunnels are in use.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#313

Post by NitpickLawyer »

kstrauser wrote: post #309
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 crap…

Grandma’s ISP can send RFC 1918 traffic to her router and likely be able to directly connect to every internal host. You should have learned in your CCNA training that NAT makes it harder to send inbound traffic to a system, but doesn’t by itself provide the filtering that a firewall does.

Right, I get that. I can see the ISP angle. But my question was specifically for outside attacks. Tangible, real-world threats in existing ISPs, reachable from the outside.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#314

Post by lotsofpulp »

post-it wrote: post #186
Hizonner wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.

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.

We are locked into apple and google backup services because of CGNAT. If ipv6, and symmetric fiber internet, was ubiquitous when smartphones came out, there could have been a competing option that backs up your own data to an appliance in your own home.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#315

Post by kccqzy »

radiator wrote: post #240

All the projects I have ever worked on, the internal networks always were IPv4. Maybe because it is much simpler for humans to have an overview of the internal subnets in that way. Maybe IPv6 uses numbers that are too large for us.

The IPv6 addresses on my internal network look like fd7a::1, fd7a::2, etc. They are shorter than v4 addresses.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#316

Post by PacificSpecific »

drewfax wrote: post #65
PacificSpecific wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I do question it often. It's a standard Asus router but it's given me a lot of ire. I hate to say it but it's never a problem when I install windows on the same machines (I'm currently in the process of trying to completely remove windows from my life)

Similar experience. I bought an ASUS router and enabled IPv6. It slowed down everything down. Immediately flashed OpenWrt on it, IPv6 works like charm. It's usually bad configuration done by the router vendors. It doesn't mean IPv6 is bad.

Thanks for the info! I'll look into openwrt

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#317

Post by mahboi »

convolvatron wrote: post #310
mahboi wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but they could've picked something that at least lets the 4 byte host talk to a 5 byte one. Like if I have 8.8.8.8 and they want to give me 8.8.8.8.0, cool. Or make it 8 bytes instead of 5, same thing.

well, if you want to add an extra byte you kinda have a problem, since v4 is fixed format and is actually cooked into hardware in a lot of places. so if you want to keep v4 mostly untouched you have to use an option, which is going to be pretty slow on the backbone. you can send a packet from an extended address host to a vanilla v4 host if you map the address space into a range like you suggest..but that v4 host jus…

It'd be useless until everyone switches to the 5-byte thing and people can start putting something besides 0 into that last byte. But at least they could turn on v5 or whatever it's called without having to think about it. Right now I could have two hosts that both agree to use ipv6 and it's still hard because you have to reconfigure everything.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#318

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101a wrote: post #160
hdgvhicv wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 30 years, with 99% of servers and devices having been designed decades after ip6 was created, half of traffic is still ip4. If that’s not a failure I hate to see what is.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#319

Post by Fabricio20 »

CrLf wrote: post #68

Cloudflare sees over 40%, and it hasn't gone up in the last year even with the overall traffic increase. Personally, as the APNIC article also says about their own observations, I guess the overall adoption is somewhere in between. https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6 But we have to remember that this reflects the adoption on the client side. With many high profile services still IPv4-only, th…

I believe one big anti-incentive is rate limiting, especially nowadays. With IPv4 getting a range ban is somewhat effective, way less effective on ipv6 (theres a reason HE tunnelbroker is marked bad nowadays, discord bots doing music load balance over ips on tunnelbroker for pulling youtube audio data.. they ban a /64 but you balance over a /48 or bigger). I believe this was the main reason Discord disabled IPv6 (not sure if thats still the case, but it was back in the day since bans and api rate limiting was ip based).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#320

Post by gertrunde »

inigyou wrote: post #211
gertrunde wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Quite possibly.

But the way that they dealt with the whole thing smelt very "we don't know what we're talking about", enough to put us off.

And shifting all the IP space about would have had costs with very little return, so little business appetite to go through it.

Post reply on HN