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

Google Hits 50% IPv6

blog.apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#341

Post by dijit »

kortilla wrote: post #339
dijit wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on how you look at it. Right now it's very much a tragedy of the commons. IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- because it's a lot harder to make it work rather than throwing up a TURN box and relaying everything. "The latency? Who cares? IPv6 sometimes breaks right now" - because nobody is testing it, so why should people be the fi…

The p2p tech argument doesn’t work anymore. Most routers ship a stateful IPv6 firewall enabled by default now because IPv6 was resulting in people’s vulnerable shit getting popped. So p2p stuff still doesn’t work without explicit configuration that rules out 99% of your users. It’s super annoying.

Yeah, it's impossible to do anything about a stateful firewall to get p2p connections.

It's a shame because if we could only get over stateful firewalling we'd be one step closer to the impossible task of using voice chat in console video games.

Right now they don't have that of course and the only hurdle is "NAT Types" which, as we all know, is a much easier problem to solve for the average person...

(this was sarcasm, if it wasn't clear).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#342

Post by xp84 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #329
JdeBP wrote: post #130

Just to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network…

The way to pressure ISPs to support IPv6 is stupid but effective: 1. Sites that help shoppers choose can add a big visual red flag to any ISP that doesn’t support IPv6. Consumers don’t know what IPv6 is by and large but they do understand seeing a big red flag. 2. Same thing for websites. Add a banner that says “hey your ISP doesn’t support proper internet connectivity which this site utilizes. Contact them to let th…

From a US perspective, for your #1, the idea of people “shopping” for broadband, is astonishing. Most people here have available to them one single DOCSIS provider and that’s it. A few lucky ones have a FTTP option too, but that definitely not available to more than 25% of addresses.

(It’s true that you can use cellular for your home internet, but I consider that extremely compromised.)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#343

Post by kortilla »

lazide wrote: post #287
gruez wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You probably wouldn't want to host a permanent website from home, although some people do, but you could share a file. bittorent has been around for decades and nobody used it. They emailed files to themselves instead, or used dropbox. This all happened before the ipv4 shortage and people getting moved to CGNAT.

Nobody used BitTorrent? LoL ISPs had/have whole groups trying to stomp it out. And it was a nightmare due to NAT even then. It just got worse with CGNAT.

I think the commenter you’re replying to is pointing out that nobody used BitTorrent for legitimate cases. And that take is sadly correct. Despite having huge upsides, everyone just hosts on centralized CDNs, file syncing services (gdrive, Dropbox, etc).

Even Linux distros push you so direct downloads now rather than pointing to trackers.

BitTorrent only has healthy usage for content that’s untenable to host legitimately.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#344

Post by dijit »

gruez wrote: post #328
miyuru wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

internet is used by billions of people, not just you.

You sure you don't have this reversed? The average person uses the internet to watch tiktok videos and join zoom meetings, all of which is centralized. The people self hosting their NAS or minecraft server is a tiny minority.

> join zoom meetings

no reason this has to be centralised.

in fact, Jitsi uses p2p with WebRTC until a third person joins the call: then migrates the call to be relayed.

A really nice latency win.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#345

Post by londons_explore »

kvdveer wrote: post #333
IgorPartola wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to pressure ISPs to support IPv6 is stupid but effective: 1. Sites that help shoppers choose can add a big visual red flag to any ISP that doesn’t support IPv6. Consumers don’t know what IPv6 is by and large but they do understand seeing a big red flag. 2. Same thing for websites. Add a banner that says “hey your ISP doesn’t support proper internet connectivity which this site utilizes. Contact them to let th…

What would be the incentive for site owners to reduce the appeal of their site? The user has connected to the site, so there's obviously no immediate problem.

Back when Https deployment wasn't widespread, Chrome added a deliberate delay to http sites so Https sites appeared faster. That was the incentive for deployment for many, because until then Https was generally slower (extra round trips to set up the tls connection).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#346

Post by Hikikomori »

zadikian wrote: post #327
Hikikomori wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An IPv5 would have all the same issues switching over to it. Its been proposed so many times over the years.

Not necessarily. I've gone down this rabbit hole in another thread, tldr there are alternatives that would've been easier initially but with the downside of leaving the routes fragmented.

Nuh uh.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#347

Post by londons_explore »

kortilla wrote: post #336
IgorPartola wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to pressure ISPs to support IPv6 is stupid but effective: 1. Sites that help shoppers choose can add a big visual red flag to any ISP that doesn’t support IPv6. Consumers don’t know what IPv6 is by and large but they do understand seeing a big red flag. 2. Same thing for websites. Add a banner that says “hey your ISP doesn’t support proper internet connectivity which this site utilizes. Contact them to let th…

Regular person, “This site requires some weird technology, I’ll shop somewhere else.” This is one of those “if everyone just” solutions that doesn’t work because shopping websites would never do that. Amazon has tons of evidence that even the slightest bits of friction result in noticeable drops in sales.

And yet Amazon's site seems to be half baked and buggy every time I visit.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#348

Post by wolvoleo »

vaylian wrote: post #286
wolvoleo wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. And the problem seems to be solving itself as the world is turning its back on globalism. China and North Korea already have separated themselves. Iran too. China still uses the same address space but it's not like there's op…

> Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. People also thought that 4 byte wide IPv4 Adresses would be large enough. It's really hard to estimate how much you will need. And because numbers are effectively a free resource, it is better to overestimate. IPv6 also giv…

Well considering the 4 bytes were designed in the time of a small research network between defense and universities, it's great foresight that they made it as big as it is. It still runs most of the internet to this day.

But it's not free, after all every packet carries this burden. I know about the annotation but it also makes it very difficult to parse.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#349

Post by mlyle »

JdeBP wrote: post #130

Just to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network…

We're finally getting there in the US, though. Top ASNs are >75% IPv6 capable.

It's Optimum Communications and Frontier (my provider) that are really holding the numbers down at ~15% each. The latter is improving very slowly, but not a lot of evidence of change in the former.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#350

Post by lazide »

kortilla wrote: post #343
lazide wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody used BitTorrent? LoL ISPs had/have whole groups trying to stomp it out. And it was a nightmare due to NAT even then. It just got worse with CGNAT.

I think the commenter you’re replying to is pointing out that nobody used BitTorrent for legitimate cases. And that take is sadly correct. Despite having huge upsides, everyone just hosts on centralized CDNs, file syncing services (gdrive, Dropbox, etc). Even Linux distros push you so direct downloads now rather than pointing to trackers. BitTorrent only has healthy usage for content that’s untenable to host legitima…

That is because BitTorrent has been targeted so much.

Also, hey now - I have a lot of (actual) Linux disk images, and it works well for that!

Post reply on HN