They have released the draft for IPv8 two days ago: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html Does it mean we better put our chips on IPv8?
Guess you didn’t read it.
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
181–190 of 643 posts
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#182Can someone reconcile for me the constant chatter about how IPv6 isn't getting impemented, versus this result that more than half of all traffic (as measured by google) is now IPv6? It sounds to me like its a tool which is available to be used when needed and when no better workarounds exist, and it is slowly but surely being adopted as needed.
Most of the chatter comes from the peanut gallery who have no real insight on what ISPs and other large networks are actually doing.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#183And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
They supported IPv6 for a short time, but then stopped their experiment. An excellent reason to move away from Github, I find.
I've been there. Management was fine with the testing but it added too much overhead for nearly no benefit to us.
One more thing to troubleshoot at 3 am, one more thing to teach to a disinterested tier 1 support team, one more thing for Chrome to be weird about, hundreds more rules to manage in a hostile load balancer, logging tools that don't understand ipv6.
Turned it off. End customer asked why the site got a little slower (CGN) and when we can turn ipv6 back on. As far as I know it's still on the backlog.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how exactly is your NATed ipv4 address better? This seems backwards.
Router has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT port forwarding to the reverse proxy. So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions? I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.
Privacy extensions are additional addresses that are used by default for outbound connections. You still have the non-privacy address, which doesn't change; put that one into DNS.
This approach prevents outbound connections from leaking the address needed to connect to your servers. On v4, it's likely that any outbound connection from your network gives the server the IP they need to do that.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#185I am in the middle of building infrastructure in GCP. The workload is your typical stateless web + db workload. As of now, there is no way to have a 100% internal ipv6. Many of the services, including CloudSQL or the connection between external and internal load balancers do not support ipv6, even when the external load balancer support ipv6 forwarding rules at the front end. This means that careful internal ipv4 all…
I had the same issue a few months ago on AWS. All I want is a server (that pulls a container), a database, and a load balancer. It's all going behind CloudFront so there should be no need to pay for an IPv4 address for any internal machine. Couldn't do it. Since then I saw that there was some movement on IPv6 for RDS but IIRC there was still some other blocker.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how exactly is your NATed ipv4 address better? This seems backwards.
Router has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT port forwarding to the reverse proxy. So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions? I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.
How often does your IPv4 address actually change?
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#187And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
The irony of this is that pretty much all they'd have to do to enable IPv6 support is to use Azure Front Door as their CDN. Or... use any other CDN, they pretty much all default to providing IPv6!
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#188Every company I have ever worked for in the US didn't use IPv6 and actually blocked it at the FW
The US has something like 80% of the world's IPv4 addresses, so they feel a lot less pressure to migrate.
I’ve worked for a company that was barely using its /16. I know several individuals, including myself, with personal /24s.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#189I am in the middle of building infrastructure in GCP. The workload is your typical stateless web + db workload. As of now, there is no way to have a 100% internal ipv6. Many of the services, including CloudSQL or the connection between external and internal load balancers do not support ipv6, even when the external load balancer support ipv6 forwarding rules at the front end. This means that careful internal ipv4 all…
I think its incredibly ironic actually. The place where IPs are burned through rapidly (internal) is forced to use v4. (and, potentially even a subset of it, RFC1918; likely conflicting with some large company or service if they decide to plumb it together later- or you burn publicly accessible IPs in the limited address space)
But the one interface that touches the internet can use v6: the one with a functionally infinite address space.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#190NB: this is not "IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark" but "availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users", which is a very important difference. This means roughly half of Google users have IPv6 capability , which does not 1:1 correspond how much traffic is actually transferred over IPv6, which is what this submission says in the title.
Yeah and this distinction explains the fact that because China's Great Firewall blocks Google, this website shows 4.66% adoption as a reflection of that. I think China's IPv6 support rate is actually much higher than that, maybe a little over 50% because of its central initiative to increase IPv6 adoption?
EDIT: Apparently it's 77% https://pulse.internetsociety.org/en/news/2026/01/china-hits...