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

IAB Statement on IPv6

iab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#41

Post by ryao »

ttflee wrote: post #18
executesorder66 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ipv6wallofshame.com/ Baidu, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit are also major players who could make a huge difference.

With poor adoption rate of IPv6 persists in China, half of those listed (taobao, tmall, baidu, hao123, qq, youku, sina, weibo, etc.) just won't change in near future.

I am visiting China. It seems impossible to get an IPv6 address from either China Telecom (the ASN lacks IPv6 peering) or a datacentdr within China. Sending traffic to a VM in South Korea has similarly had the issue where I cannot find any VMs with IPv6 support, although most have terrible latencies.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#42

Post by ryao »

executesorder66 wrote: post #7
ryao wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and github are the two major offenders.

https://ipv6wallofshame.com/ Baidu, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit are also major players who could make a huge difference.

Those are just one site each though. GitHub and Amazon are many.

Also, I am not sure if googleadservices.com should be on that list. Leaving advertising on IPv4 to die might be for the best. ;)

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#43

Post by danyork »

daurnimator wrote: post #2

IMO the major thing holding back IPv6 on the web is amazon. A huge proportion of services are hosted on AWS, and the lack of IPv6 addressing of instances cannot be forgiven.

The good news is that Amazon has been slowly rolling out IPv6 support across various AWS services (ex. S3, CloudFront). Once they support IPv6 on EC2, though, that will be the big breakthrough!

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#44

Post by ryao »

Spooky23 wrote: post #38

I've not run into a problem solved by IPv6. There's no incentive for ISPs to provide good service, so they can just follow the mobile carrier route and nat/proxy when exhaustion becomes an issue. As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.

I get better peering though the HE tunnel broker than I get on IPv4. :)

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#45

Post by [deleted] »

phicoh wrote: post #36
kalleboo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Japan, the largest consumer fiber wholesale network (NTT) "supports" IPv6, but you need a separate, $100 router that talks PPPoEv6 since none of the common consumer routers (including the one they provision you with) seem to support it. I also haven't been able to get PPPoEv6 working in macOS.

Anything that can run OpenWRT should be able to do PPPoE with IPv6.

[deleted]

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#46

Post by proactivesvcs »

Spooky23 wrote: post #38

I've not run into a problem solved by IPv6. There's no incentive for ISPs to provide good service, so they can just follow the mobile carrier route and nat/proxy when exhaustion becomes an issue. As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#47

Post by _red »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #46
Spooky23 wrote: post #38

I've not run into a problem solved by IPv6. There's no incentive for ISPs to provide good service, so they can just follow the mobile carrier route and nat/proxy when exhaustion becomes an issue. As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

>consumes router resources

Thats a weird claim to make against IPv4. Grab a calculator and see how much memory is required by a IPv6 /64 address space.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#48

Post by fps »

ohitsdom wrote: post #34
vetinari wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with microsoft.com.

How is this the case?

Both Microsoft and Apple's www sites use Akamai's CDN, via a cname to a CNAME to something in akamaiedge.net, which support ipv6. The apex record of a domain (that is, the root record, microsoft.com or apple.com) cannot be a CNAME, it can only have an A, NS, MX or TXT record. A records make dynamic infrastructure hard, because they require API coordination between your DNS provider and your CDN. So Microsoft and apple host their own apex domain records via A records to static IPs in their own IP blocks, and have these servers issue a permanent http redirect to www.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#49

Post by kalleboo »

StavrosK wrote: post #40
kalleboo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, how did I miss this, CloudFront getting IPv6 support is huge!

"Getting?" I set up some CloudFront instances (or whatever they call them) a month ago and it had an IPv6 checkbox (which was unchecked by default, for some reason), but it seems to have been working fine ever since.

Yeah the announcement linked is from a month ago

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#50

Post by fps »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #46
Spooky23 wrote: post #38

I've not run into a problem solved by IPv6. There's no incentive for ISPs to provide good service, so they can just follow the mobile carrier route and nat/proxy when exhaustion becomes an issue. As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

As a sysadmin, if I had limitless IPv4 addresses, I'd still use NAT on servers and clients because it's a useful security layer. There's little reason that individual devices need globally routable IP addresses.
Post reply on HN