How come some countries have a negative -10ms *latency?
I think it's latency relative to ipv4. So maybe their ipv4 networks are more congested.
IPv6 Adoption Statistics
81–90 of 134 posts
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#82I've looked around and I can't find one ISP that "support" ipv6 in Sweden. The big ones alway replies with "We have enough ipv4 addresses for a long time forward, you don't have to worry."
I'm not worried, I just want to have ipv6 access.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#83I'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…
The presentation is from... long time ago :-)
Now they serve to everyone over IPv4 and IPv6 and these stats are the actual IPv4 requests vs. IPv6 requests that they get, not some projected number.
On address selection:
Safari uses Apple API which has a proprietary mechanism for determining whether IPv4 or IPv6 gives a better user experience. You can approximate this as an RTT race between IPv4 and IPv6 connection (thus, somewhat of a flavour of what we describe in RFC6555).
Firefox/Chrome give a small headstart (~150-300ms) to IPv6.
IE strongly prefers IPv6, except if a particular MS-hosted IPv6 site is not reachable, then it strongly prefers IPv4.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#84I'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.
This reflects the shift of traffic to mobile. Everyone using Verizon Wireless with an IPv6 capable device is using IPv6. It's behind some sort of carrier grade proxy, but is IPv6.
Also, if you are using T-mobile, you can use IPv6-only, and they have a few million subscribers.
I got a T-mobile SIM when I was in the US last month, and switched to IPv6-only APN. Worked pretty well for the casual browsing - and the non-IPv6 websites were still reachable using NAT64 on T-mobile's side. Though the possibility to do IPv6-only might depend on your handset.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know we have firewalls, but in the normal desktop use-case, there are some applications that you want to be able for external clients to connect to. Skype (or other VoIP clients), Bittorrent, Game servers, etc all work better with or flat-out require external connectivity. In the V4 world, we have upnp or NAP-PMP to allow applications to open a port on the router and to have the router then forward the packets to a…
I don't really think they get better connectivity. If you can establish a connection from the inside things works as intended for basically everything. Peer-to-peer is a little different. Personally I find it a little scary that we allow applications to just open up inbound ports as they see fit. Would you, say, install MySQL locally and have it listen on such an address because it's so unlikely that anyone will ever…
If you install MySQL locally, you should not have it listen on any address other than the loopback by default.
And when you do expose it, if you care about security, you should configure the appropriate iptables along the way there and then, rather than relying on a magic box somewhere upstream filtering the packets.
This can be doubly useful if the box in question your laptop which you carry around in various, potentially hostile, environments.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we pay too much for our internet :P
EDPnet, a smaller ISP has been natively providing IPv6 for ~3 years already (but 3rd biggest independent ISP?). Telenet followed somewhere last year, and Belgacom (biggest) followed this year (only on new modems though).
Voo is doing IPv6 as well, AFAIK.
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ gives a per-AS breakout, with the %%% being the massaged number as seen by the content-provider participants.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#87Every time IPv6 comes up on HN, around 50% of the comments seem to be about how IPv6 doesn't do NAT and how now every device you have is suddenly directly exposed to the internet. Let's clarify this a bit instead of answering individual commenters: In IPv6, just like in IPv4, you have a firewall. In Linux, you use ip6tables instead iptables, for example. This is what keeps your devices on your network safe. If you we…
Privacy Extensions is dangerous: http://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-...
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#88Can IPv6 become, ironically, the reason ipv4 never dies? Once a majority move to v6 wouldn't that mean a whole bunch of the ipv4 space is being free'd up. This allows those who never update to actually never update.
Once the critical mass is reachable over IPv6, the rest becomes "long-tail" which will eventually be too expensive to bother about.
An extreme example: if an internet user has IPv6 and just uses gmail, youtube and facebook - they can turn off IPv4 right now and not notice anything.
Lee Howard has had an interesting presentation on the subject: https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.howard...
p.s. Quite a few million of T-mobile's subscribers are also IPv6-only today, just that they use NAT64/464XLAT to connect to IPv4-only services.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#89Every time IPv6 comes up on HN, around 50% of the comments seem to be about how IPv6 doesn't do NAT and how now every device you have is suddenly directly exposed to the internet. Let's clarify this a bit instead of answering individual commenters: In IPv6, just like in IPv4, you have a firewall. In Linux, you use ip6tables instead iptables, for example. This is what keeps your devices on your network safe. If you we…
Privacy Extensions is dangerous: http://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-...
This seems like the case of a very specific problem for a large network. I don't believe that in a typical home or small office setting this would have a bad effect.
Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One thing that's tricky about V6 is the fact that without NAT all your boxes are internet-reachable unless you have a firewall. That's easily added of course, but whereas we have protocols like upnp and nat-pmp to reconfigure NAT routers, there's nothing equivalent for various applications to tell the router to forward some V6 traffic. Is there any reason the same approach shouldn't work? All the application needs…
All you need is a firewall. NAT is not a security feature: it just has security implications. In IPv4 land, it's the firewall that does all the port forwarding, etc. anyways. If you are running IPv6, get a nice OpenWRT router, where the firewall is enabled by default.
What are the implications of using a laptop on a public Wifi where you don't control the router? (Or a friend's house, or anywhere else where the router isn't yours).
OS-level firewall, I guess? Which maybe you should probably have anyway?