Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPv6 Adoption Statistics

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#11

Post by calpaterson »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Out of curiosity (I live in the UK, a country that does not believe in adopting new technologies less than 5y after everyone else), with IPv6, there is no need for a NAT anymore. Will the local networks be directly on the WAN? Will be interesting from a security/privacy point of view. Unless routers act as firewall, in which case we are back to square 1...

Most home routers already act as an inbound firewall. Regarding "back to square 1" - the aim of IPv6 is not to expose thousands of poorly secured LAN devices to the public net - it's to restore the point-to-point nature of the internet. I would still expect most LANs to be firewalled when IPv6 is adopted

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#13

Post by CSDude »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Out of curiosity (I live in the UK, a country that does not believe in adopting new technologies less than 5y after everyone else), with IPv6, there is no need for a NAT anymore. Will the local networks be directly on the WAN? Will be interesting from a security/privacy point of view. Unless routers act as firewall, in which case we are back to square 1...

You will still need a router at home, and it can still filter any packets coming in/going out, even if the connected devices have globally accesible addresses. So, there should not be a huge problem.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#14

Post by chimeracoder »

cm2187 wrote: post #8

Out of curiosity (I live in the UK, a country that does not believe in adopting new technologies less than 5y after everyone else), with IPv6, there is no need for a NAT anymore. Will the local networks be directly on the WAN? Will be interesting from a security/privacy point of view. Unless routers act as firewall, in which case we are back to square 1...

Addressable != routable.

Think of a doorman for a luxury building or a gated community. The people living inside have publicly available addresses, but knowing the addreses doesn't mean that the doorman will automatically let you through to go visit.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#15

Post by coldpie »

ghshephard wrote: post #2

I'd be very interested in knowing how these stats were calculated - 12% of the United States on IPv6 seems a bit high. Maybe what Google is saying is that "It's Available, but we're not saying people are using it." - For example, Comcast has had IPv6 widely deployed for at least a year, so most of their customer might be identified as "Available" - even if their browsers aren't doing a AAAA lookup for www.google.com.

I think mobile ISPs are leading the charge here. I know my phone on T-Mobile is using IPv6.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#16

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

cm2187 wrote: post #12
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #5

In Austria not having IPV6 support is a feature, and I assume it's that way in many countries. If an ISP rolls out IPv6 for you here you lose your public IPv4 address (DS-Lite).

you mean you currently have a static IPv4 IP?

No. You have an IPv4. Does not matter if dynamic or static. With DS-Lite you have neither. You're behind a carrier level NAT.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#17

Post by darren_ »

ghshephard wrote: post #2

I'd be very interested in knowing how these stats were calculated - 12% of the United States on IPv6 seems a bit high. Maybe what Google is saying is that "It's Available, but we're not saying people are using it." - For example, Comcast has had IPv6 widely deployed for at least a year, so most of their customer might be identified as "Available" - even if their browsers aren't doing a AAAA lookup for www.google.com.

> I'd be very interested in knowing how these stats were calculated

Reasonably sure it's based off something similar to this: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/73/slides/v6ops-4.pdf

And yes, it is basically 12% of US users are capable of connecting to google over ipv6, not that they necessarily did/have. A browser might, for a URL that resolves to both v4 and v6 addresses, always try the v4 address first; this'd give you users that _can_ connect over v6 but don't. FWIW I have a v6-capable connection and find on chrome I pretty much always connect to google and facebook over ipv6, but I have no idea how IE/FF/Safari behave.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#18

Post by e12e »

calpaterson wrote: post #11
cm2187 wrote: post #8

Out of curiosity (I live in the UK, a country that does not believe in adopting new technologies less than 5y after everyone else), with IPv6, there is no need for a NAT anymore. Will the local networks be directly on the WAN? Will be interesting from a security/privacy point of view. Unless routers act as firewall, in which case we are back to square 1...

Most home routers already act as an inbound firewall. Regarding "back to square 1" - the aim of IPv6 is not to expose thousands of poorly secured LAN devices to the public net - it's to restore the point-to-point nature of the internet. I would still expect most LANs to be firewalled when IPv6 is adopted

Just to expand on that, with IP6, it would make sense to simply give every router, DSL "modem" etc a [ed: theoretically, publicly] routable ipv6 subnet. This makes (in theory) everything easier: the firewall can simply block/allow -- no need for long chains of NAT-rules. It might make networks marginally more transparent -- but it really means very little in terms of security. Nor really for privacy.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#19

Post by feld »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #16
cm2187 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you mean you currently have a static IPv4 IP?

No. You have an IPv4. Does not matter if dynamic or static. With DS-Lite you have neither. You're behind a carrier level NAT.

I would agree that carrier grade NAT is a downgrade
Post reply on HN