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

381–390 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#381

Post by crote »

xp84 wrote: post #342
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…

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.)

You have to decouple the physical infrastructure from the service provider - how else are you supposed to have competition in a market with a natural monopoly? It's just about the only thing the EU did right during the mandated privatization of infrastructure.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#382

Post by fegu »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #272
TheDong wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the privacy issue? That the server can figure out that two computers in the same house are different since your laptop and phone no longer share the same ipv4 address but instead have two ipv6 address? Your phone and laptop can just have multiple ipv6 addresses and rotate through them regularly... as apple does by default https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/seccb625dcd9/... Security? NAT is not a f…

> NAT is not a firewall, I've only read that on HN, I've never heard this anywhere else. Since it's been a good 20+ years since my CCNA (and haven't needed to renew it since), could you please offer a real-world example where NAT is not a firewall w/ practical examples relating to 99.9% of cases of home use? I just can't get why people say this a lot here. NAT works and passes the grandma test. If grandma buys a crap…

I agree. NAT, while occasionally limiting, was a godsend. Just imagine how the world would look if everyone out there was at the mercy of a well configured router with firewall.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#383

Post by crote »

dijit wrote: post #206
gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

The sheer amount of times Airdrop has been the "best" way to share files takes away from your point a bit. It's almost always faster than anything else available, and ipv6 would make that method of sending files closer to the default for most people. Having VOIP in games or 1v1 lobbies is, in the strictest sense, "hosting" something in the same way. FD: I work in video games so I speak from this bias.

IPv6 doesn't solve the Airdrop problem. It'll only work at reasonably-fast speeds in the rare case that both people are connected to the same wifi network - but there's already tools like LocalSend[0] for that. Having a file go via cellular provider A, halfway across the country, through some IX, halfway across the country back, and via cellular provider B tends to make things a bit slow.

Similarly, using P2P for game VOIP is a Really Bad Idea as it basically doxxes the player. Even 1v1 lobbies aren't always with people you trust enough to invite them into your house, so you shouldn't be handing them your IP address! In 99% of cases it is better to proxy it via a server instead.

[0]: https://localsend.org/

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#384

Post by crote »

LinXitoW wrote: post #326
gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

Obviously I can't see the future, and I live in my own bubble.... Isn't self hosting, and small, private/semi-private communities the only way forwards for much of the internet? AI has made content extremely valuable, which in turn has started to destroy the openness of the web. Things are getting more and more siloed, with entry fees. There's a world where self hosting comes back in a big way. AI ironically makes it…

Self hosting doesn't mean home hosting.

Someone DDoSing the $10 VPS hosting my personal website is no big deal. I don't care about it strongly enough that it must stay online, so they'll eventually get bored and move on.

Someone DDoSing my home internet connection? That's going to be a serious inconvenience - especially with WFH. No internet for a week isn't an option.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#385

Post by CursedSilicon »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #358
xp84 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Starlink shattered this monopoly in my area.

A single extra provider does not mean a monopoly is "broken". Especially if they aren't even competing in the same niches

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#386

Post by Dagger2 »

Fabricio20 wrote: post #319
CrLf wrote: post #68

Cloudflare sees over 40%, and it hasn't gone up in the last year even with the overall traffic increase. Personally, as the APNIC article also says about their own observations, I guess the overall adoption is somewhere in between. https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6 But we have to remember that this reflects the adoption on the client side. With many high profile services still IPv4-only, th…

I believe one big anti-incentive is rate limiting, especially nowadays. With IPv4 getting a range ban is somewhat effective, way less effective on ipv6 (theres a reason HE tunnelbroker is marked bad nowadays, discord bots doing music load balance over ips on tunnelbroker for pulling youtube audio data.. they ban a /64 but you balance over a /48 or bigger). I believe this was the main reason Discord disabled IPv6 (not…

Why is it less effective on v6? You just ban the /48 or bigger.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#387

Post by commandersaki »

baby_souffle wrote: post #363
mahboi wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.

> but isn't what most people do. Most people run dual stack and as $favoriteHost gets AAAA, their traffic moves over. My broader point was that your use of overstatement and a false dichotomy isn't _helping_ us get to a world where IPv6 is dominant.

20 years too late.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#388

Post by crote »

throw0101a wrote: post #237
gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

> Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. How about Xbox/PS multiplayer/P2P gaming? Hosting a Minecraft server? When Skype first came out it was P2P, but had to come up with the "supernode" concept (basically STUN/TURN/ICE) because of NAT: now all of our communication methods basically have to phone into the mothership. Do we want the Internet to be more centrali…

Would you give your personal phone number to random strangers on the internet, or even publish it on a website? Probably not, due to the possibility of harassment, right? IP addresses aren't any different, which immediately kills a huge portion of the game server self-hosting.

A hosted and managed Minecraft server is available for less than the cost of a cup of coffee per month. At that price point it makes very little sense to deal with the hassle of having to run your own home server. Even if you want to geek out and manage it yourself, a VPS is a very attractive option.

And for the handful of people that remain and really want to homelab a Minecraft server for their friends but are stuck behind CGNAT, there's always software like Hamach - which solved the gaming NAT problem back in 2004.

So no, self hosting isn't a problem which needs IPv6 to solve it.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#389

Post by lxgr »

jlokier wrote: post #246
inigyou wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing about SLAAC is that it forces your ISP to give you at least 64 bits. Otherwise you know Comcast would only give out a /128 and charge you for more, so you'd use NAT at home just like IPv4.

Unfortunately SLAAC doesn't force upstream to provide a /64 universally. Some ISPs are reportedly giving out a /128, and SLAAC works adequately with a router performing IPv6 NAT, so those ISPs don't see a problem. Mobile phone as WiFi access point is another common way people access the net nowadays. I've occasionally seen permanent installations, with a phone taped to a window. I've never seen a mobile phone AP offe…

> Some ISPs are reportedly giving out a /128, and SLAAC works adequately with a router performing IPv6 NAT, so those ISPs don't see a problem.

Wow, that’s diabolical. Presumably these routers are some custom CPEs then? I don’t even know whether regular home routers support NAT66.

> I've never seen a mobile phone AP offer IPv6 to clients

I’ve only even seen it work without NAT when there was any v6! Usually the phone gets a /64, and there is a bit of trickery involved to make that shareable to other devices (NDP rewriting), but it works pretty well.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#390

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #358
xp84 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Starlink shattered this monopoly in my area.

> Starlink shattered this monopoly in my area.

The parent was noting that most of the US lives in a region, that is under a monopoly of wireline ISP (DOCSIS, FTTH). Starlink can't shatter a wireline monopoly because it is OTA.

Post reply on HN