21–30 of 69 posts
Can anyone explain what "latency / impact" means on the per-country graph? I can't quite make sense of it: United Kingdom: 0ms latency, 0.02% impact Romania: -10ms latency, 0.01% impact Bulgaria: 10ms latency, 0.03% impact Japan: 20ms latency, 0.03% impact All that I can divine so far is that 20ms appears to be the threshold at which your country will receive a red tint regardless of your adoption percentage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
80% in 2018 160% in 2019 Apologies for being flippant. Just making the point that you're extrapolating without spending time on the likely shape of that adoption. It seems more likely that this is an S-curve, and that we'll continue to see IPv4 traffic for the next decade, maybe longer.
I think it pretty likely that once we reach 50% it will switch from "That thing that techies care about" to "Something people assume everyone has", and that any remaining ISPs that don't provide IPv6 will rush to get it done. I'm sure that IPv4 support will continue for a fair while though.
It feels like it'd need to be a dramatic cost saving in order to kick in at 50% adoption.
In the meantime Google Compute Engine does not support IPv6.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it pretty likely that once we reach 50% it will switch from "That thing that techies care about" to "Something people assume everyone has", and that any remaining ISPs that don't provide IPv6 will rush to get it done. I'm sure that IPv4 support will continue for a fair while though.
What's the mechanism that makes that first company drop support for IPv4? Cost? It feels like it'd need to be a dramatic cost saving in order to kick in at 50% adoption.
1. The color selections on the "Per-country IPv6 Adoption" tab are abysmal for those of us with poor color perception.
2. Since we're talking about replacing outdated technology, why use a Flash-based graph on the "IPv6 Adoption" tab?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, there could be a number of reasons for this. Companies may not see a need to upgrade to IPv6 just yet, all their internal machines have nat-ed addresses and they have enough public ip addresses. They use some legacy software / hardware X that doesn't support IPv6 (hey, some companies are still paying Microsoft to support XP).
Or when I look at the company I work for it's just that nobody bothers because not having IPv6 hasn't caused a single problem so far.
"Google works, so it's not my connection at fault, it must be your site that's broken."
The big reason to support IPv6 now is IMO that (all else being equal) it's better to add v6 support when you roll something out than to introduce it later.
In the meantime Google Compute Engine does not support IPv6.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, there could be a number of reasons for this. Companies may not see a need to upgrade to IPv6 just yet, all their internal machines have nat-ed addresses and they have enough public ip addresses. They use some legacy software / hardware X that doesn't support IPv6 (hey, some companies are still paying Microsoft to support XP).
Or when I look at the company I work for it's just that nobody bothers because not having IPv6 hasn't caused a single problem so far.
Our network guys seems to love the extra complexity, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rate-limiting is still easy with IPv6, you just limit whole subnets (e.g. a /64) instead of single IP addresses. I guess Google has figured that out as well. I actually do believe that this is real traffic. Here in Germany the number of connections with native IPv6 is rising constantly. At home all my devices are always using IPv6 when connecting to Google services because I also have native IPv6. Those 12.26% for Ge…
In Germany anyone on the telekom network who has a new contract or changed an exisiting contract in the last 16 months or so has IPv6.
I'd tried some IPv6 settings in my router last year, and 6to4 worked pretty well at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it pretty likely that once we reach 50% it will switch from "That thing that techies care about" to "Something people assume everyone has", and that any remaining ISPs that don't provide IPv6 will rush to get it done. I'm sure that IPv4 support will continue for a fair while though.
What's the mechanism that makes that first company drop support for IPv4? Cost? It feels like it'd need to be a dramatic cost saving in order to kick in at 50% adoption.
For example, I find it easier to have an https-only web infrastructure. Too bad for old deprecated browsers who cannot support proper encryption (and therefore become a security risk for me, and a waste of time to support). Dual protocols (v4 and v6) take more time and money to manage. Initial training can be harsh. Some first-gen hardware was terrible. However, now that it's done, I can't wait to switch off IPv4.