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

381–390 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#381

Post by Tuna-Fish »

agwa wrote: post #347
mmbleh wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous rate limits for us are skewed towards preventing abusive behavior. Most users do not have a problem, even there is a CGNAT on IPv4. For IPv6, if we block on /128 and a single machine gets /64, a malicious user has near infinite IPs. In the case of Linode and others that do /64 for a whole data center, it's easy to rate limit the whole thing. Wrong assumption or not, it is an issue that is made worse by IPv6

I don't doubt your experience, but I wouldn't expect it to continue. I don't think Tuna-Fish is correct that "most" of the IPv4 world is behind CGNAT, but that does appear to be the trend. You can't even assume hosting providers give their subscribers their own IPv4 addresses anymore. On the other hand, there's a chance providers like Linode will eventually wise up and start giving subscribers their own /64 - there a…

> I don't think Tuna-Fish is correct that "most" of the IPv4 world is behind CGNAT

~60%+ of internet traffic is mobile, which is ~100% behind CGNAT.

On desktop, only ~20% of US and European web traffic uses CGNAT, but in China that number is ~80%, in India ~70% and varies among African countries but is typically well over 70%, with it being essentially universal in some countries.

Overall, something a bit over 80% of all ipv4 traffic worldwide currently uses CGNAT. It's just distributed very unevenly, with US and European consumers enjoying high IP allocations for historical reasons, and the rest of the world making do with what they have.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#382

Post by neojima »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #246
po1nt wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice idea. Always wondered why IPv6 went so ambitious with the addressing

One of the craziest aspects of IPv6 implementation is the reverse DNS lookups. IPv6 uses ip6.arpa and segments each little nybble into a subdomain! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup#IPv6_revers... This means there are always 32 octets to a reverse-IPv6 address, and there are no shortcuts or macros to overcome this! That means if you wish to assign a singular name that maps from a legitimate /64 Network…

Anyone who's ever had to delegate DNS authority on anything other than an 8-bit boundary can understand the value of that feature.

At face value, yeah, that's replacing "8" with "4," but from a practical perspective, delegating authority for a customer IPv4 /25 requires, at minimum, 128 records. (Granted, there's also no practical need to be stingy about IPv6 allocations -- that IPv4 /25 customer could simply receive an IPv6 /48.)

I would firmly expect to see a lot more formulaic reverse (and presumably forward) DNS responses, where needed, since filling files with records you need to store on disk (and in memory) doesn't scale well. The tech has existed for years; I wrote my own implementation years ago, but these days I'd use something like PowerDNS with https://github.com/wttw/regexdns .

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#383

Post by g8oz »

lxgr wrote: post #354
MiscIdeaMaker99 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when was there ever a plan to disable IPv4 on the Internet? Just because IPv6 is around doesn't mean that IPv4 is going to go away.

Why would we keep around a whole separate Internet? Dual stack was always only intended for the transition period.

It's very hard to get rid of old standards.

"The past is never dead. It's not even past"

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#384

Post by Galanwe »

kstrauser wrote: post #302
Galanwe wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and they were right. v6 adoption is often an all or nothing, because if you run both stacks, you have to ensure they are consistent. While you can reasonably do it on your home LAN, doing it across an entire infrastructure is the worst. Now you have to make sure all your subnets, routing, VLANs, firewall rules, etc work exactly the same in two protocols that have very little in common. It is the equivalent of shi…

I genuinely don’t understand this. The concepts are nearly identical between the two.

Hum no, to me they are orthogonal.

v4 was built around the idea of multiple free standing networks linked by gateways. v6 was built around the idea of a universal network.

I dont care about what your LAN adress space look like when I'm in my LAN, because we are not in the same v4 network. I am sovereign in my network.

With v6, everyone is effectively in the same network. I have to ask my ISP for a prefix that he will rent me for money even for my LAN. If I want some freedom from said ISP prefix, I am mercifully granted the honor of managing ULA/NAT66 (granted I paid for a fancy router).

Also if I want any kind of privacy, I will have to manage privacy extensions and the great invention of having to use automatically generated, dynamically routed, essentially multiple random IPs per interface. How lucky am I to use such a great new technology.

Seriously v6 was created by nerds in a lab with no practical experience of what people wanted.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#385

Post by TabTwo »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #259
growse wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A non-trivial minority of the time, they don't support IPv4 either!

should we try going back to IPX ?

I remember removing the IPX route entries from our Cat65 MSFC back in 2006 and from the ATM/Framerelay WAN Equipment. Wasn't very popular with the customers.

I also remember the first IPv6 Workshop on W2k SP3 back in 2002. Not that long ago.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#386

Post by grimmai143 »

It’s amazing to see this finally hit 50%. Out of curiosity for the infrastructure folks here: are you actually running IPv6 inside your internal VPCs and Kubernetes clusters now, or are you still mostly just terminating it at the edge/load balancer level?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#387

Post by embedding-shape »

colechristensen wrote: post #356
CupricTea wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub is at the point where it immediately rate limits me if I try to look at a project's commit history without being logged in, as in the first time I even open a single URL to the commit history, I get "Too Many Requests" from GitHub thrown at me. I don't know if my work's antivirus stack is causing GitHub to be suspicious of me, but it's definitely egregious.

Your work is probably all exiting through the same IP, you competing with others on the same IP is causing the rate limit.

The very same thing happen on my residential connection, I can do one search query, then I'm rate limited for 15+ minutes, same if I access any list of commits.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#388

Post by crazygringo »

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…

> It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing.

Is it plateauing? From the chart it doesn't look that way at all to me.

You could say it's flat between August 2025 and now, but it also was from Jun 2024-Feb 2025, or August 2023-March 2024. There's just a lot of noise to it -- lots of short plateaus or even dips followed by lots of sudden jumps. Indeed, it seems to have a bit of a yearly cycle to it, suggesting we're at the inflection point of another jump upwards.

So it still seems to be growing strongly to me. The rate of growth has slowed maybe the tiniest bit 2024-2026 compared 2018-2023, but I don't see it anywhere close to plateauing yet.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#389

Post by roryirvine »

throw0101d wrote: post #254
merpkz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/b…

Yes, /64 is a reasonable starting point for blocking outright, but /48 is the right unit for scoring reputation.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#390

Post by kentm »

betaby wrote: post #287
imoverclocked wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISPs often fail to do this because there is always someone in the hierarchy who says, "nobody is demanding it."

Nobody is demanding IPv4 either. Or Ethernet. People buy "Wi-Fi", literally "Wi-Fi", not Internet access.

Exactly. To this point I went to a Comcast store to cancel my internet and the person asked me if I meant I wanted to cancel my “Wi-Fi”. I was very confused for a couple seconds.
Post reply on HN