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

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#111

Post by Arnt »

crazy8s wrote: post #98
Arnt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I have two consumer DSL connections at home from different ISPs with completely independent infrastructure (a few billable hours pays for a year's redundancy). Both of them behave give me new, unpredictable v6 prefixes via DHCP every 2h/1d. So obviously not all other ISPs work the way yours does.

So, you are dependent on the ISP cooperating to give you privacy? What could possibly go wrong? Downvote me all you like guys. This just proved my point. NSA will love IPv6 adoption.

Sure. We're dependent just like we were on IPv4, except that the ISPs' address pools are bigger. The same things can go wrong.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#112

Post by samuelsmith »

Arnt wrote: post #111
crazy8s wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you are dependent on the ISP cooperating to give you privacy? What could possibly go wrong? Downvote me all you like guys. This just proved my point. NSA will love IPv6 adoption.

Sure. We're dependent just like we were on IPv4, except that the ISPs' address pools are bigger. The same things can go wrong.

That sounds a bit disingenuous. IPv4 was always on a forced rotation because a) limited address space and b) ISPs wanted to milk customers for static IP charges. IPv6 eliminates a). That leaves b) which isn't really a factor on mobile devices. It really is a permanent cookie if the ISP decides to implement it that way. I can't say I trust AT&T and Verizon after their 'header enrichment' shenanigans.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#113

Post by ghshephard »

tw04 wrote: post #56
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.

Not in the least. For all their atrocities, Comcast was one of the early IPv6 adopters and has rolled it out to their entire residential customer base (people with older modems/routers that don't support IPv6 obviously won't pull an IPv6 IP address). That's EASILY 11% of US internet traffic.

I think that's the point I was trying to make.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#114

Post by IgorPartola »

justincormack wrote: post #78
IgorPartola wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shoot an email to HE. Their support for this free service is better than most commercial support teams I've interacted with. Also, don't discount that it's possible that the other end of the equation, the server you are trying to reach, has poor IPv6 connectivity. Fire up a Digital Ocean instance for an hour (it'll cost you $0.10) and see if the site is slow from everywhere. I've been using HE.net's tunnels for a goo…

They do rate limit you to around 4Mb I believe so you might want to not ship your netflix over them, which it will unless you are careful.

Reference? I couldn't find anything about it, and have been watching Netflix through them for at least three years now.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#115

Post by c0nsumer »

ay wrote: post #80
c0nsumer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it's anything that's slow... When I've got a tunnel live, Google properties and Facebook are pretty much unusable. Weirdly, sometimes it'll work fine... Other times it won't. (The server I'm testing against with is my personal site, https://nuxx.net , which has great IPv6 connectivity already. I just don't want to tunnel my home connection through it because that'll seriously push up the bandwidth use…

This description might also match a partly-working path MTU discovery (a possibly too-high rate of ICMP egress from HE end to content sites, blocked by rate-limiter on the HE device). In IPv4 you do not notice it (it almost never triggers) because there is less tunnels and also because generally everyone does MSS clamping. In IPv6, you have the tunnel and not necessarily MSS clamping. Two ways to tackle it: - configu…

This is a very good thought, and something I hadn't tried yet... Mostly due to the sporadic functionality of the issue. I'll give this a go tonight; thank you.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#116

Post by p1mrx »

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).

Widespread carrier grade NAT is inevitable, because we simply have more people than IPv4 addresses.

Just because an ISP is rolling out CGN and IPv6 together doesn't imply that IPv6 is an anti-feature. It's certainly better to have CGNv4+IPv6 than CGNv4 alone.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#117

Post by speleding »

c0nsumer wrote: post #63

I've been trying on and off to get IPv6 working at home, but the problem I keep running into is poor performance from tunnels. I have service via Wide Open West which is great for IPv4, but they have no plans to support IPv6. So, I try using a tunnel... Both HE.net and SixXS are so incredibly slow that I get >1 second pings to something which is 30ms away via IPv4. The tunnel end point is only ~50ms away, so I can on…

I had no trouble getting an HE tunnel working, but it does mess up some sites that depend on IP geolocation. Netflix in particular becomes very confused about my whereabouts and refuses to play a lot of content.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#118

Post by takeda »

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.

Everyone who uses IPv6 also uses IPv4, but IPv6 is used whenever site supports it, and when they have to fallback they most likely connect through CGNAT).

For example everyone on Verizon who uses 4G uses IPv6 by default and CGNAT for sites that are IPv4.

When IPv6 is implemented correctly, the user doesn't even know when he/she is using IPv6.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#120

Post by revasm »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #105
IgorPartola wrote: post #74

Every 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…

I recently had to disable ipv6 because my router started freaking out about "neighbor table overflow". Some kind of issue between Asus and Comcast.

This error is caused by a bug[1] present on outdated versions of Linux (typically exhibited by DD-WRT and Tomato routers) and can also be fixed by upgrading to OpenWRT.

Or, if that is not an option, by creating an ip6tables rule:

  ip6tables -A PREROUTING -t mangle -p icmpv6 --icmpv6-type neighbor-solicitation -i `nvram get wan0_ifname` -d ff02::1:ff00:0/104 -j DROP
Or you can experiment with the ARP cache limits:

  sysctl net.ipv6.neigh.default.gc_thresh1=256
  sysctl net.ipv6.neigh.default.gc_thresh2=512
  sysctl net.ipv6.neigh.default.gc_thresh3=1024
[1] http://serverfault.com/a/461053
Post reply on HN