Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#251

Post by throw0101d »

denkmoon wrote: post #33
globular-toast wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know any technical reason for this? Or are we left to think this is somehow a political thing?

Outdated beliefs probably. When I talk about v6 support in our b2b saas, PM laughs and says nobody uses that shit. Big tech are massive laggards on this funnily enough.

> Outdated beliefs probably. When I talk about v6 support in our b2b saas, PM laughs and says nobody uses that shit.

Nobody except the 140M subscribers on T-Mobile US's network:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA

But sure, be IPv4-only and add latency by forcing traffic through an extra translation box.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#252

Post by mrsssnake »

Galanwe wrote: post #170
AndrewDucker wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.

> IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4 Neither is IPv6 > To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6 The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4. I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable…

Do NAT64 and just worry about IPv6 if not wanting dual stack.

All of IPv6 features are just direct effects of having more space and not. Basically IPv6 "features" is just getting rid of IPv4 workarounds.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#254

Post by throw0101d »

merpkz wrote: post #210
direwolf20 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be that they don't want to implement IP bans in IPv6.

How does IP bans work in IPv6 case? One just blocks whole /64 or /56 address range?

I have not had a deal with this, but if I was going to, I would start at the /64 and move up by nibble (4-bit) boundaries: /64, /60, /56, /52, /48.

/56 is often recommended as the minimum as for a (residential) customer. /48 is considered a "site" address prefix, and is the smallest allocation that can be advertised in BGP:

* https://blog.apnic.net/2020/06/01/why-is-a-48-the-recommende...

* https://www.infoblox.com/blog/ipv6-coe/a-48-for-every-site-a...

You get 65k subnets with it, which is what you get with 10/8.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#255

Post by michh »

IshKebab wrote: post #159
michh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a little tin foil hatty and definitely not the only reason but Microsoft owns Github and also makes a boatload of money off of Azure. Incumbent cloud providers like Azure have a major advantage in terms of having plenty of IPv4 addressing available whereas a new entrant to that market would have to buy or lease that space at a premium. Thus, these companies have an incentive to keep IPv4 a necessity.

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.

I don't know what the percentage would be, but we do have some historical precedent that could give us a clue.

Best one I can think of is when bigger websites started actually dropping SSLv3 and TLSv1.0 (and later TLSv1.1) support, cutting off older browsers and operating systems. Google and Amazon still support TLSv1.0, but plenty of others (including Microsoft) have dropped 1.0 and 1.1. HN itself doesn't accept 1.1 anymore either.

Then there's browser support. Lots of websites - big and small - cut off support for Internet Explorer 6 when it was somewhere below 5% marketshare because the juice was no longer worth the squeeze. Of course, few of those actually fully cut off the ability to browse the (now broken) website fully but it's a datapoint suggesting trade-offs can and will be made for this sort of thing. Or to put it in the present: a significant amount of webapps don't support Firefox (3% market share) to the extent their product is completely unusable in it.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#256

Post by throw0101d »

dtech wrote: post #39
usui wrote: post #5

It 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…

Apple/iOS is probably one of the biggest individual drivers of IPv6 adoption. They've been requiring that iOS apps work on IPv6-only networks for close to 10 years now

> They've been requiring that iOS apps work on IPv6-only networks for close to 10 years now

This was at the behest of mobile network. E.g., T-Mobile US has 140M subscribers, and moved to IPv6-only many years ago:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#257

Post by tialaramex »

throw0101a wrote: post #199
literalAardvark wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 litt…

Facebook is (AIUI) 100% IPv6-only on their internal network, and has been for many years: * https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering... * https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2014/09/facebook-launch... IPv4 is actually the "leftover" stuff they have to deal with at the front end. But they are an eye-balls heavy service, with a lot of mobile devices, which also tend to be IPv6-native.

It also just takes actual policy will. Somebody has to actually say "No" when the supplier who promised an IPv6 product says afterwards actually they meant IPv6 "ready" and they should have put an asterisk because really only the next version will be "ready", and er, so the product they've delivered doesn't actually work with IPv6 but that's fine right?

"No". Not every human is psychologically prepared to do that. They want to acquiesce, to go along to get along, you need somebody to be firm. "No".

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#258

Post by [deleted] »

cyberax wrote: post #127
stackghost wrote: post #35

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#260

Post by sidewndr46 »

fogllgldl wrote: post #213
rekoil wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

we could meet in the middle: Azure support IPv6 with 0% uptime
Post reply on HN