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

IPv6 Adoption Statistics

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#41

Post by pilif »

kalleboo wrote: post #34
pilif wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know we have firewalls, but in the normal desktop use-case, there are some applications that you want to be able for external clients to connect to. Skype (or other VoIP clients), Bittorrent, Game servers, etc all work better with or flat-out require external connectivity. In the V4 world, we have upnp or NAP-PMP to allow applications to open a port on the router and to have the router then forward the packets to a…

Isn't it easy enough to just have a local firewall on each machine where you open up ports for the apps you want to be public?

The firewall on a local machine might suffer from exploits, thus still allowing access.

Or I might want some services open to my lan and only a smaller subset opened to the public (something the personal firewalls built into many OSes can't do)

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#42

Post by wbond »

IPv6 became available to me on my Comcast connection in the past six months, but I ended up disabling it at my local router. Unfortunately it seems in my area (North of Boston, MA) the IPv6 routing on Comcast's network is extremely spotty. Sometimes connections would time out on all different ports (22, 80, 443). This lead to a rather poor experience for members of my household. I ran into lots of issues with SSH. My wife ran into lots of issues using apps on her iPhone. She was switching to her mobile data connection on a regular basis to work around the issue. Since disabling IPv6 on our network, all of the issues have gone away.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#43

Post by talideon »

I wouldn't be surprised if that 1.36% in Ireland was almost solely down to the hosting company I work for.

I really wish the hosting providers here would get their acts together when it comes to IPv6 deployment, but they're really dragging their heels on it. I recently got a VDSL connection from Magnet and while I've a static IPv4 address for the connection, no such luck for IPv6.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#45

Post by chime »

Spooky23 wrote: post #27
ghshephard wrote: post #2

I'd be very interested in knowing how these stats were calculated - 12% of the United States on IPv6 seems a bit high. Maybe what Google is saying is that "It's Available, but we're not saying people are using it." - For example, Comcast has had IPv6 widely deployed for at least a year, so most of their customer might be identified as "Available" - even if their browsers aren't doing a AAAA lookup for www.google.com.

This reflects the shift of traffic to mobile. Everyone using Verizon Wireless with an IPv6 capable device is using IPv6. It's behind some sort of carrier grade proxy, but is IPv6.

Indeed. You can test it on Verizon by doing a Google search for: ip

It should give you your mobile's IPv6 address.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#48

Post by vegardx »

pilif wrote: post #29
vegardx wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While having an unique address per application can be cool, I don't like the premise that this is used as some sort of security layer. We have firewalls. We know how they work and how to implement them well. For all intents and purposes a typical NAT-setup is bascially wide open from the inside and out. You can do the same with a few simple rules on a firewall.

I know we have firewalls, but in the normal desktop use-case, there are some applications that you want to be able for external clients to connect to. Skype (or other VoIP clients), Bittorrent, Game servers, etc all work better with or flat-out require external connectivity. In the V4 world, we have upnp or NAP-PMP to allow applications to open a port on the router and to have the router then forward the packets to a…

I don't really think they get better connectivity. If you can establish a connection from the inside things works as intended for basically everything. Peer-to-peer is a little different.

Personally I find it a little scary that we allow applications to just open up inbound ports as they see fit. Would you, say, install MySQL locally and have it listen on such an address because it's so unlikely that anyone will ever find it anyway?

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#49

Post by Arnt »

s_dev wrote: post #44

How much time pressure are we under to replace IP4 with IP6? Is this something that has to be done in 2 years or 10 years?

It varies.

Some ISPs made sure to allocate rather a lot of addresses around 2010, and have room to grow by allocating more efficiently. The ISP where my colo hosts lives used one /30 per customer at the time (which is a fine, sensible strategy, just not one that saves IP addresses). When one of those old customers leaves, the ISP can use the /30 for four new customers.

Another ISP I deal with has already run out of v4 addresses, and some of its customers only have CG-NAT access to IPv4 today. That ISP already has to optimize many things for low v4 address usage.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#50

Post by anonymfus »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #5

In Austria not having IPV6 support is a feature, and I assume it's that way in many countries. If an ISP rolls out IPv6 for you here you lose your public IPv4 address (DS-Lite).

Here in Russia many (most?) consumer providers have IPv4-only carrier grade NATs and sell public addresses with additional monthly fees. This happened gradually: when providers run out of addresses they had not fast enough routers for DS Lite, but after transition to NATs they got incentive to keep additional revenues from people who pay for public addresses.

So if in your country some ISPs are too slow to roll out IPv6, may be they have plans worse.

Post reply on HN