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

421–430 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#421

Post by Dagger2 »

commandersaki wrote: post #170
Hendrikto wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milliseconds matter for gaming, for example.

We are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligible at best, or at worst let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).

Google's stats claim that it's 10-20ms for many countries, for example both the US and Canada show the latency impact of v6 as being -10ms. This is per round trip too -- between the connection handshake, congestion window slow-start and serialized requests it adds up to something significantly bigger than a few hundred microseconds.

> let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).

The Cogent island must be very small, because I'm single-homed on HE and had actually forgotten about that.

Or perhaps v6 isn't split into two separate islands after all, and this is just yet another weird claim people make about v6 that doesn't match reality.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#422

Post by mahboi »

baby_souffle wrote: post #363
mahboi wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.

> but isn't what most people do. Most people run dual stack and as $favoriteHost gets AAAA, their traffic moves over. My broader point was that your use of overstatement and a false dichotomy isn't _helping_ us get to a world where IPv6 is dominant.

That's using v4 like the parent comment said. But anyway I don't want ipv6 to be dominant, I want them to scrap it and do something easier.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#423

Post by Dagger2 »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #313
kstrauser wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grandma’s ISP can send RFC 1918 traffic to her router and likely be able to directly connect to every internal host. You should have learned in your CCNA training that NAT makes it harder to send inbound traffic to a system, but doesn’t by itself provide the filtering that a firewall does.

Right, I get that. I can see the ISP angle. But my question was specifically for outside attacks. Tangible, real-world threats in existing ISPs, reachable from the outside.

If we're talking tangible, real-world threats in existing ISPs, then NAT is doing nothing to protect you. In fact it's doing the exact opposite, because without NAT you wouldn't be able to connect out from your network.

Even if you want to ignore the fact that most attacks arrive via outbound connections and restrict the discussion to just inbound ones... remove NAT and the exact same set of people that could connect to you before can still connect to you, so it's doing nothing for your inbound connections.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#424

Post by Dagger2 »

anonymouscaller wrote: post #353

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html I've never seen this chart before, was taking a peek from the link in the article. Does anyone with networking knowledge know why IPv6 usage peaks on Saturdays and dips during the middle of the week? (something related to mobile ISPs?)

People are at work during the week, and work networks have a lower average deployment of v6 then home networks do. As evidence, you can also see the impact of holidays and COVID-19 lockdowns on the size of the dips.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#425

Post by lmpdev »

HDBaseT wrote: post #406
crote wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

What Malcolm Turnbull did to the NBN was absolutely disgraceful

The reforms also resulted in a lot of people never getting FTTN/FFTC in the first place - so will forever be 5G only unless there’s a new scheme rolled out

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#426

Post by will4274 »

Dagger2 wrote: post #415
will4274 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have to do that with range bans in v4 too, since you have no idea how big the pool of addresses a user can pull from is -- and with CGNAT in the picture you're kind of doomed to banning legitimate customers on v4 no matter what you do.

Yes, you ban some legitimate customers with v4. But the span between the smallest allocations and biggest allocations is much smaller, so simple strategies (like banning the bad address) scale further.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#427

Post by TuxPowered »

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…

> Even if you want to geek out and manage it yourself, a VPS is a very attractive option.

And some VPS providers already started charging extra for hosting the server on Legacy IP.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#428

Post by TuxPowered »

crote wrote: post #391
IsTom wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't do that with CGNAT.

You can, it just requires the ISP to play nice. CGNAT doesn't have to draw a random ip:port combo out of a hat for every new connection. Nothing is stopping an ISP from implementing it by taking one ip and assigning ports 1-10.000 to customer A, 10.001 - 20.000 to customer B, and so on. Similarly, nothing is stopping an ISP from adding long-lived mappings to an otherwise-random pool which outlive the initial connecti…

> Nothing is stopping an ISP from implementing it by taking one ip and assigning ports 1-10.000 to customer A, 10.001 - 20.000 to customer B, and so on. Similarly, nothing is stopping an ISP from adding long-lived mappings to an otherwise-random pool which outlive the initial connection.

I’m pretty sure that the scarcity of Legacy IP addresses and port numbers (!) is exactly what stops providers from doing that, at least by default. I’ve seen NAT running out of ports way too many times, and shortening of connection tracking lifetime comes with a whole set of hard to spot bugs.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#429

Post by HDBaseT »

commandersaki wrote: post #170
Hendrikto wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milliseconds matter for gaming, for example.

We are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligible at best, or at worst let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).

Latency wise, I am not noticing any difference (at least in ICMP).

ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping 8.8.8.8

PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=24.3 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=119 time=24.1 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=119 time=23.9 ms

^C --------------- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --------------------

4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms

rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.901/24.053/24.291/0.157 ms

ycombinator@Mainframe:~$ ping6 2001:4860:4860::8844

PING 2001:4860:4860::8844 (2001:4860:4860::8844) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=1 ttl=118 time=23.5 ms

64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=2 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms

64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=3 ttl=118 time=23.9 ms

64 bytes from 2001:4860:4860::8844: icmp_seq=4 ttl=118 time=24.0 ms

^C ------- 2001:4860:4860::8844 ping statistics -------------------

4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 23.517/23.845/24.008/0.200 ms

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#430

Post by hdgvhicv »

Dagger2 wrote: post #402
hdgvhicv wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The vast majority of the current size of the Internet, basically 100%, was built after IPv6 was ratified and indeed became a normal part of equipment.
Post reply on HN