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

401–410 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#401

Post by wolvoleo »

laughing_man wrote: post #400
wolvoleo wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I looked it up, they're talking about 6.2 million customers' details. That's 30% of the NL population.

A lot of those people might be ex-customers. People who moved, died, or switched to another company. I worked for a mobile company in the US, and once you were in our customer database, you stayed there. We never got hacked, at least, not so far, but if you got access to customer data the total number would be substantially higher than the current customer count.

Like the other reply says, this is not allowed in the EU. You can't just 'stay there'. They must be violating the GDPR if that was the case.

Also their response has been really bad. It was basically them saying "oh well it's not so bad if your details are leaked". And giving some free antivirus crap.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#402

Post by Dagger2 »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #141
lxgr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've only ever had v6, both on DOCSIS and fiber. Both observations are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things; actual adoption rates are what matter. > At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration. That's a pretty wild thing to say in the comment section of an article about v6 reaching 50% eyeballs-side deployment.

After 30 years, with 99% of servers and devices having been designed decades after ip6 was created, half of traffic is still ip4. If that’s not a failure I hate to see what is.

What's the par time for L3 protocol migrations on the Internet at its current size?

Bear in mind we've never done a project of this complexity and scale before. I'm sure we all wish it had been faster, but how can you possibly evaluate whether this is a failure or not without knowing how long it normally takes?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#403

Post by Dagger2 »

sherburt3 wrote: post #337
convolvatron wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this keeps coming up, if you add a byte to ipv4 you still have a transition problem. 5 byte machines can't talk to 4 byte machines. pretty much the only thing that solves is people not liking the :: syntax. the only other change is auto configuration, which...kind of doesn't matter? is that really causing problems?

I think the addresses are a big issue. The address space is just stupid big, I don't understand why we need to prepare for every grain of sand on Earth having a WiFi chip in it. Most people can pick up calculating subnets in their head in ipv4 pretty quickly and ipv4 addresses are easy to memorize on accident. My brain turns to mush as soon as I start seeing hexadecimal characters in addresses.

But subnetting in v6 is so much easier than in v4? And it's specifically because of the hex. You don't even need to calculate it, in your head or otherwise, because you just subnet based on characters:

  2001:db8:42:1xxx::/52
  2001:db8:42:2xxx::/52
  2001:db8:42:20xx::/56
  2001:db8:42:21xx::/56
  2001:db8:42:210x::/60
  2001:db8:42:2100::/64
  2001:db8:42:2101::/64
etc. About the only mildly complicated thing is remembering that leading zeros in a number can be dropped but trailing ones can't (i.e. 1 and 001 are the same number, but 1 and 100 are different numbers), but that's something you should've learnt in grade school already.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#404

Post by Dagger2 »

mahboi wrote: post #317
convolvatron wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, if you want to add an extra byte you kinda have a problem, since v4 is fixed format and is actually cooked into hardware in a lot of places. so if you want to keep v4 mostly untouched you have to use an option, which is going to be pretty slow on the backbone. you can send a packet from an extended address host to a vanilla v4 host if you map the address space into a range like you suggest..but that v4 host jus…

It'd be useless until everyone switches to the 5-byte thing and people can start putting something besides 0 into that last byte. But at least they could turn on v5 or whatever it's called without having to think about it. Right now I could have two hosts that both agree to use ipv6 and it's still hard because you have to reconfigure everything.

Why the double standard?

v6 already gives you what you're asking for here: you can turn it on without thinking about it, but actually using the extra addresses from it requires reconfiguring some things (not everything, mind).

Why is that bad when it's v6 doing it, but good when it's your 5-byte thing doing it? Or did you just not think through this enough to realize you were asking for something we already have?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#405

Post by will4274 »

Dagger2 wrote: post #386
Fabricio20 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's difficult for servers to know how big client allocations are. With v4, pretty much everybody got /32s, but with v6, sizes vary. So you've got to start with small bans, and then switch to big bans later, but not too aggressively so you don't accidentally ban legitimate customers. It's a tricky balance.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#406

Post by HDBaseT »

crote wrote: post #381
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.)

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.

This is exactly what Australia did.

The government laid the fibre (sorta) and then the ISP can use the fibre in any location to serve customers. We can select from nearly 100 different ISPs with many different plans (up to 2Gbps) and the switch over can take as little as 10 minutes if provisioned correctly.

* The Australian governement originally elected to roll out fibre everywhere. The next government decided it was too costly and designed "Multi Technology Mix" (MTM). The MTM consisted of Satellite (Skymuster), 4G/5G Towers (Fixed Wireless), FTTN (Fibre to a Node, then Copper to House), FTTC (Fibre to Curb, then copper to house), FTTP (Fibre to the Prem). Many years later, all of this is overtuned and effectively all FTTN/FTTC customers can get a free FTTP upgrade.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#407

Post by ivlad »

crote wrote: post #388
throw0101a wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 litt…

> 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

1. The claim that IP addresses aren’t different from the phone numbers requires proof

2. Until very recently, just before the Covid pandemic people regularly exchanged physical business cards with their mobile phone numbers. So, yes, people do that.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#408

Post by zadikian »

jessinra98 wrote: post #164

> Is IPv6 really that widely used? Mobile carriers use it almost exclusively, which is already a huge chunk of the internet, and newer ISPs are switching to it too.

Almost all mobile carriers use v6, but not exclusively. They also hand out a v4 to every customer. The v6-only part is their internal network.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#410

Post by mahboi »

throw0101a wrote: post #395
mahboi wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly assigned 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default 7. give every device its own public IP by default. Ipv6 did those anyway. Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0…

> Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 now. If anyone switches to the new thing, they know where to find me. Yeah… from the above link: """ Incidentally, "IPv8" proponents often ask why IPv6 didn't simply stick some extra bits on the front of IPv4 addresses, instead of inventing a whole new format. Actually, we tried that: the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" format was defined in [R…

6to4 wasn't that. 8.8.8.8 didn't get routed to you in v6, instead it went to a relay server that then translated to v4 then sent it to you. And even if you actually owned 8.8.8.8, it didn't give you 8.8.8.8.1 etc, because it was just some bolt-on for transitioning from v4. I just want to own 8.8.8.8(.0.0.0.0) in v6 and that's it, not have my v6 actually be abcd::1234::...

I don't think they were dumb, they wanted to start with a clean slate and underestimated the difficulty.

Post reply on HN