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

401–410 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#401

Post by vel0city »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #169
venzaspa wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dell, HP and Lenovo have had laptops with cellular modems for maybe 15 years at this point.

I can confirm this. I work at an e-waste recycling company, and the vast majority of my inventory is corporate IT decommissioned gear. About 1 out of 10 laptops I tear down has a cellular modem, going back to about Intel Core 5th gen.

I've had laptops with cellular modems built in going back to Pentium IIIs. The Compaq N600c had a "multiport" bay on the lid, one of the options was a GSM modem.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#402

Post by ff317 »

Random related data point: for HTTP requests to Wikipedia (and related) for the past 7d, the IP protocol split is roughly 35% IPv6 / 65% IPv4. (this is counting by-request, so heavy usage from a small number of IPv4s can skew it).

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#403

Post by neojima »

jcranmer wrote: post #345
shrubble wrote: post #245

I am aware of at least 2 telecoms, one publicly traded, that have very little to no IPv6 in their core networks and only use IPv6 when they have to. Personally I think the design of IPv6 offers very little benefit; supposedly the Dept of Defense/Dept of War holds some 175 million IPv4 addresses, with other companies also holding large allocations - that should have been addressed 25-30 years ago as an administrative…

There are 16 /8's in the class E address space that were never allocated, and 19 /8's (by my count) allocated to individual companies. If you waved a wand and returned all of that space to IANA for allocation, you would have staved off IPv4 address exhaustion by... about 3 years.

2.7 - 4.0 years, by my math, so I would agree with your assessment.

...but that's based on pre-IANA-runout rates, though, and doesn't account for the pent-up backpressure of demand. So probably a lot less, in reality.

Not even remotely worth the effort, even if there were a legal pretext for "reclaiming" IPv4 space (there isn't; there's already precedent denying it).

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#404

Post by GoblinSlayer »

mmbleh wrote: post #320
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... But that's no different from IPv4. Sometimes you have one per user, sometimes there are ~1000 users per IP. Most of the ipv4 world is now behind CGNAT, one user per ip is simply a wrong assumption.

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

If a single machine gets /64 and you rate limit by /64, what doesn't work?

>Linode and others that do /64 for a whole data center

That's how it's supposed to work.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#405

Post by School-Cotton »

pjf wrote: post #133

NB: this is not "IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark" but "availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users", which is a very important difference. This means roughly half of Google users have IPv6 capability , which does not 1:1 correspond how much traffic is actually transferred over IPv6, which is what this submission says in the title.

Wouldn’t it be close? AFAIK modern network libraries on modern OSs default to IPv6 when available.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#406

Post by lxgr »

kalleboo wrote: post #364
lxgr wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that’s very cool! Do you know how that works? Do they just connect you to a NAT64 gateway of your choice?

IPv4 is provided using DS-Lite or MAP-E depending on the provider. I'm using OpenWRT and paid for a static IP so I had to manually configure all the details for the MAP-E tunnel in OpenWRT myself, I think typically the routers sold to consumers pick up the configuration automatically somehow.

Woah, MAP-E allows static v4 (and presumably inbound connections)? That seems neat and much better than DS-Lite!

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#407

Post by esseph »

Hikikomori wrote: post #152
esseph wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's extremely common unless on "active" fiber (vs GPON, DOCSIS3, DSL, most fixed wireless, satellite, mobile, etc.) Your wifi isn't symmetrical either.

Those are designed to have static asymmetrical bandwidth though, *dm split gives ISP side more of possible shared bandwidth. Wifi bandwidth is shared and dynamic so client can use all of it.

> Those are designed to have static asymmetrical bandwidth though

Yes, that's why I said that?

> *dm split

No idea what you're trying to say here.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#408

Post by sholladay »

CupricTea wrote: post #339
growse wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

It’s not you or your setup. I experience the same behavior. Tried with and without Private Relay, residential and commercial ISPs at different locations, and more to debug it. Same results.

I think GitHub has just gotten so aggressive with their rate limit policies that it’s straight up incompatible with their own product. The charitable interpretation is that they aren’t keeping good track of how many requests each page actually performs in order to calibrate rate limiting.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#409

Post by neojima »

ninkendo wrote: post #233
jabl wrote: post #73

Are any ISP's or corp intranets doing IPv6-mostly style networks yet: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-link-v6ops-6mops-00.ht... That seems to be a promising approach.

T-Mobile does: https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-... They use 464XLAT, basically NAT64/DNS64 with some extra cooperation on the OS’s part for backwards compatibility with apps that hard-code IPv4. You get only a v6 address, and your OS basically synthesizes an v4 network on your device in cooperation with their NAT64 router. But all the bytes going from your device through to their towers ar…

Additionally, their fixed-wireless product gives you a physical CPE that does the CLAT (NAT46) side of the 464XLAT.

To the local network, it looks like there's native IPv4, but it's translated to IPv6 by the gateway, and sent to the "nearest" NAT64 PoP to be translated back and sent along its merry way.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#410

Post by bananamogul »

RiverCrochet wrote: post #333
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. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it It's fine. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used at the same time. There's no hurry. Network interfaces support anything as long as both sides agree (nothing stopping you from building your own IPX network over MPLS). People can move to IPv6 when the IPv4-as-real-estate speculators get out…

I've been hearing that those speculators were going to get out of control and the IPv4 price was going to skyrocket for 10+ years.

Yet I can still rent a VPS with IPv4 for $12/year from a wide variety of providers.

Post reply on HN