More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

Post by talideon » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 12:07 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #161

talideon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, tonnes of benefits. If you've ever been through a merger, you'll know the pain of dealing with getting the everything working when merging networks. That issue doesn't exist with IPv6 to anywhere near the degree because you don't have overlapping RFC1918 space to deal with. IPAM with IPv4 is a massive pain in the backside once you get up to a certain scale, even if you're allocating from 10/8. If you have multip…

Well - you may have overlapping RFC 4193, but if your network engineers have done their job well, you are randomly choosing from a big honking FD/8 address space, and the odds of a collision are statistically very unlikely.

Post by ksec » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 12:53 PM UTC

Decade wrote: post #221

ksec wrote: post #218

I often wonder if we improve the usability of IPv6, like a subset of Ipv6, would it help adoption? Things like using only numbers and not issuing address with letters. We would still get larger than 64bit of address space, but we dont have to work with the gibberish address.

No. There’s no way around IPv6 addresses being 4 times as long as IPv4 addresses. I mean, Google DNS is 2001:4860:4860::8888, and in the IPv4 style it would have been: 32.1.72.96.72.96.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.136.136 I’m sure if IPv6 were formatted like IPv4, Google would have formatted the address differently, like, 32.1.72.96.72.96.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.8.8.8 The point is there is no way around the address being uncomfortably long…

Post by api » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #216

api wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also wonder if they're pushing this for lock-in reasons. If they make everyone architect in this way then people need more load balancers, NAT gateways, firewalls, and other complexity, and they charge for all that.

I have noticed that the cloud vendors seem to drag their feet on trivial free features that would undermine the need to use some expensive offering that auto scales to match your credit rating. For example, Azure Network Security Groups (NSGs) have some glaring omissions that were ignored for years, but have just recently been oh-so-conveniently resolved by Azure Firewall. The old NSGs were free, the firewall costs m…

Post by Dagger2 » Thu, Aug 06, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #223

Dagger2 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security is provided by a firewall. But a lot of IoT botnet stuff comes from people opening inbound connections to their cameras/NASs/etc so they can access them from elsewhere. These are hosts where the network security has been deliberately disabled. The large address space of v6 at least reduces the odds of someone finding the device -- an insecure, unexploited device is better than an insecure exploited one. You…

> Security is provided by a firewall. Right so as I said elsewhere I'll be dropping all packets for incoming connections at the firewall. I was heavily downvoted for that comment... I guess a lot of folk will leave insecure devices open to the world.

Post by Arnt » Fri, Aug 07, 2020, 10:03 AM UTC

Dagger2 wrote: post #158

Arnt wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a subnet, yes. GP declared it to be approximately the same as an end customer. How do you know that the ISP replacing it often is "unusual, to say the least"? Or is that something you know?

There's a fair few ISPs changing the prefix every day, but this is the first I've heard of anyone changing it every half an hour. If it was common I would've heard a lot of complaining about it by now.