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

421–430 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#421

Post by RiverCrochet »

bananamogul wrote: post #410
RiverCrochet wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For now, :) Hopefully it continues.

> if IPv6 prevents IPv4 rental prices from going haywire, then it's served a useful purpose.

Competition is good.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#422

Post by stackghost »

ENGNR wrote: post #124
noirscape wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big reason is that domestic ISPs don't want to switch (not just in the US, but everywhere really.) Data centers and most physical devices made the jump pretty early (I don't recall a time where the VPS providers I used didn't allow for IPv6 and every device I've used has allowed IPv6 in the last 2 decades besides some retro handhelds), but domestic ISPs have been lagging behind. Mobile networks are switching en m…

It's frustrating that even brand new Unifi devices that claim to support IPv6 are actually pretty broken when you try to use it. So 10 years from right now even, unless they can software patch it upwards.

Interesting, what's broken for you? I have some unifi gear and it handles v6 no problem.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#423

Post by stackghost »

cyberax wrote: post #127
stackghost wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6. The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that: 1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale…

IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6. For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses…

>For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address

Most of my home devices have multiple v4 addresses, not counting 127.0.0.1, so this assumption is incorrect.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#424

Post by connicpu »

menotyou wrote: post #144
keybits wrote: post #129

Tailscale have a great FAQ about IPv4 vs IPv6: https://tailscale.com/docs/reference/faq/ipv6 If you're not an expert in this area it's worth a read - I certainly learned a few things!

"IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP), the successor to IPv4." This is a misconception. It is not the successor to IPv4, it is an alternative. Maybe the alternative is so good it will eventually make the older extinct, but it does not look like that

Regardless of whatever other things may be better or worse about ipv6, it's still a reality that as we continue connecting more and more devices to the internet eventually ipv4 addresses will become so scarce and valuable that a not-insignificant minority of residential customers will be behind such aggressive CGNAT that the internet will become nearly unusable unless a majority of the services they are using support ipv6.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#425

Post by brcmthrowaway »

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.

Jesus, what a waste

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#426

Post by stackghost »

lxgr wrote: post #360
stackghost wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6. The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that: 1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale…

> it's hard to remember addresses We desperately need a standardized protocol to look up addresses via names. Something hierarchical, maybe. > with v6 you can't rely on NAT as an ersatz firewall Why would you not just use a regular firewall? Any device that is able to act as a NAT could act as a firewall, with less complexity at that.

>Why would you not just use a regular firewall?

No idea, but people do it. Every time this comes up on HN there are dozens of comments about how they like hiding their devices behind a NAT, for security

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#427

Post by zokier »

marginalx wrote: post #373

Is most of that due to mobile? The real migration challenges are in the server side/consumer home internet space which I'm not sure if there are clear stats around the adoption there. I think IPV6 is a great example of over engineering, trying to do too much in one iteration. In an ideal scenario this could work, but in the context of large scale change with no single responsible party, it usually doesn't work well.

CloudFlare Radar has stats for desktop (34%) vs mobile (46%) adoption: https://radar.cloudflare.com/explorer?dataSet=http&groupBy=i...

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#428

Post by nailer »

growse wrote: post #19
rtdq wrote: post #13

And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539

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

IPv1, IPv2, and IPv3 were very early experimental versions of the Internet Protocol developed in the 1970s during the ARPANET era (the precursor to the modern internet). Has anyone tried to find out if GitHub is reliable on those?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#429

Post by vlovich123 »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #399
vlovich123 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero observability and alerting too. Seems like they’re planning to be a productive future member of that team.

Who? The infrastructure team that did the move didn't even tell anyone. They were decommissioning old servers, and moving the VMs to new hardware. I'm just a lowly developer that had to troubleshoot why SMSes stopped going out.

Observability and alerting is pretty standard devops. Both the dev and infrastructure teams dropped the ball here. But at least as part of remediating this you added alerting to make sure you’d notice when your twillio connection fails in the future, right?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#430

Post by tialaramex »

skywhopper wrote: post #275
globular-toast wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know any technical reason for this? Or are we left to think this is somehow a political thing?

IPv6 rollout is a lot of operational work that ends with next to no immediate quantifiable benefit. So I’ll never be prioritized in a cost-cutting environment.

I mean, all your numbering woes vanished, so, that's probably an immediate quantifiable benefit unless you're so tiny you never needed any renumbering effort, in which case your "operational work" to deploy IPv6 was probably zero.
Post reply on HN