The failure wasn't in the technical design of v6, but in the economic assumption. When the cost of migration exceeds the cost of 'hacks' like NAT, people will stick to the hacks for as long as humanly possible.
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
211–220 of 643 posts
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#212Spain: 9.9% What's going on in Spain?
Bizarrely, Telefonica doesn't see a need. But, their subsidiaries in LatAM do heaps! And, they do central purchasing.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. Especially given that it is now owned by Microsoft, which has been working on IPv6-only (at least on their corporate network) for almost a decade: * https://blog.apnic.net/2017/01/19/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/ * https://www.arin.net/blog/2019/04/03/microsoft-works-toward-...
I mean Azure doesn't really support IPv6 well either for a lot of the big-ticket services.
More importantly, it doesn’t support uptime well.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Never checked. But it does change once in a while. The router has a dyndns function which updates a DNS entry, but only for the router itself. But this is sufficient for the NAT port forwarding.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#215If GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks. This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update policies pro-actively. And cu…
Anyone who relies on IP filtering for security deserves to have it broken. Change my mind.
IP filtering + proper security is better than just having the security.
There's value in restricting access and reducing ones attack surface, if only to reduce noice in monitoring.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#216I wonder why Germany has a relative high adoption rate with 77%? They are normally behind when it comes to new technology. Is it because they have more carrier NAT? In Denmark I can get cheap 1 / 1 Gbit/s fiber, but still no ipv6 :(
Carrier-grade NAT for home connections is pretty rare in Germany. I only know of Deutsche Glasfaser - a fairly new ISP that isn't doing too well.
It's very common. German ISPs collectively went with DS-Lite, so most of that 77% with v6 have CGNATed v4.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6. The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that: 1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale…
IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6. For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses…
> For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean.
I assume you mean "interface", not "host". Because it's absolutely not true that a host can only have one "local net address".
EDIT: a brief Google also confirms that a single interface isn't restricted to one address either: sudo ip address add / dev
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv4 is going to be a necessity for many many decades no matter what Microsoft do. Even when IPv6 is at 99%, people aren't going to want 1 in every 100 people to not be able to access their site at all. It'll need to be like 99.9% before we start seeing serious IPv6-only services.
Sure, but the implementation in the public clouds is totally backwards. What they should have done is have their core network default to IPv6 with IPv4 an optional add-on for things like public IP addresses, CDN endpoints, edge routers, VPNs, etc... Instead, their core networks are IPv4 only for the most part with IPv6 a distant afterthought.
IPv6 is the protocol of the future. And will be so.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#219It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it. I thought I would see IPv6 take over in my lifetime as the default for platforms to build on but I can see I was wrong. Enterprise and commercial companies are literally going to hold back internet progress around 60 to 75 years because it's in their best interest to ensure users…
Worst migration plan ever.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#220It's only a matter of time before laptops get 5G. Macbooks have been rumoured for a while to get cellular modems. [1] This will probably help adoption. On the one hand it will generate more IPv6 traffic. On the other hand it will expose more developers to IPv6; which will expose them to any lack of support for IPv6 within their own products. [1]: https://9to5mac.com/2025/08/14/apples-first-mac-with-5g-cell...
I can't imagine a worse privacy nightmare. Always on backdoored baseband in 5G with a unique permanent IPv6 address assigned to the machine. Okay, maybe it could be worse if each user account is assigned its own unique IPv6 perma-cookie.
As if people doesn't already carry always online machine in their pockets