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

441–450 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#441

Post by N_Lens »

lmpdev wrote: post #425
HDBaseT wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I firmly believe it was Murdoch’s plan to delay FTTP NBN because he could see it would scuttle his Fox empire preemptively.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#442

Post by marysol5 »

JdeBP wrote: post #130

Just to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network…

If you sign up with + in your e-mail address, it breaks their backend too

Fun fun

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#443

Post by jon-wood »

jdw64 wrote: post #67
jon-wood wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When hosting a server IPv6 doesn't make a huge difference beyond your logs will probably be a bit more accurate, people behind CGNAT where an ISP has multiple customers sharing a block of IPv4 will show up with their actual IPv6 address. They'll maybe also find it slightly quicker because they're not being funnelled through NAT gateways but realistically not enough to notice. From the user side IPv6 is great for me.…

Thank you for the advice. By any chance, have you worked with Ruby before? I remember seeing your username back when Ruby was popular and I first started learning it in university

Heh, there’s a blast from the past. I was doing Ruby professionally from 2005 to 2024 or so, I’m primarily using Python now because that’s what the business I’m working for was built on but I’ll always have a soft spot for Ruby.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#444

Post by jdw64 »

jon-wood wrote: post #443
jdw64 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the advice. By any chance, have you worked with Ruby before? I remember seeing your username back when Ruby was popular and I first started learning it in university

Heh, there’s a blast from the past. I was doing Ruby professionally from 2005 to 2024 or so, I’m primarily using Python now because that’s what the business I’m working for was built on but I’ll always have a soft spot for Ruby.

I got help with an assignment from you before. You were probably just responding, lol. I was grateful back then.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#445

Post by commandersaki »

throw0101a wrote: post #396
commandersaki wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point. Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around. As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest…

> NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. Given they made the transition to IPv6 on handsets, T-Mobile US, which has 140 million subscribers, would disagree: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA > As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest. When people talk about averting address exhaustion, they're not…

You do realise that mobile usage is a subset of the Internet and the Internet is not just about end user connectivity.

But you still haven't addressed my original point, how has IPv6 averted the impending (at the time) IP exhaustion problem? As I remember it, we were running out of IP addresses, then we did run out, and CGNAT helped extend the life of the Internet for people on IP, while v6 still remains an island that is optional and doesn't help alleviate any of the pain.

TL;DR: v6 is not fit for purpose.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#446

Post by tumetab1 »

jdw64 wrote: post #24

I made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4

Likely caused by better performance provided by IPv4.

Browsers try both stacks (Happy Eyeballs algorithm) so likely the IPv4 is working better for your visitors.

Since must people use IPv4 most of the time, IPv6 performance issues go unnoticed by the users, ISPs, CDNs, etc.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#447

Post by mahboi »

tolien wrote: post #434
mahboi wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I know it's point 4, that was the point. You can do forwards compatibility that way.

> We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses So your alternative does something you said you didn’t want, while being worse than the original?

Oh I mixed it up with 3. Yes you don't need #4. I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1, so it's 1:1 but not onto. Instead v6 did completely new /64s with random addrs inside, no association with the v4 addrs.

About the others being optional, no they aren't really, because most devices will implement the minimum. Android doesn't support dhcp6. My router is like most and has no option to enable dhcp6 or nat6 anyway.

Ipv6 spec also says that a router could either default allow in or not via its firewall. In reality it's usually default deny, but not always, hence the freakouts people have about security in v6. V4 spec doesn't know about NAT, but in real life the answer is no you don't get inbound connections or even a publicly routable address unless you deliberately configured that.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#448

Post by mahboi »

Dagger2 wrote: post #404
mahboi wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because you can't generally turn on v6 without thinking about it. Maybe consumers can, even then not always cause it messes random things up. Power users and offices maybe can't. Service operators really can't. If it were as easy as you're saying, all those things like Github would already at least support v6.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#449

Post by mahboi »

coldstartops wrote: post #14

Google hits 50% IPv6, very good for accessing websites. But my TP-Link router blocks by default inbound IPv6 connections, without any option to configure it, still bad for pure IPv6 bidirectional streaming, gaming or services on home networks.

Most people will never touch their router config, so the defaults are important. Default-deny inbound is better than allow. But it's surprisingly dumb that the router won't even let you configure it to allow, you sure there's no option to disable the firewall?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#450

Post by mahboi »

adithyassekhar wrote: post #176

Whenever I turn on ipv6 on my router (isp supports it, dual stack) randomly I get half the download speeds, YouTube video freezes, and eventually a captcha screen on google. The moment I disable v6 even only at the client side I get to max out my bandwidth. Tested on google drive, sites on azure and aws and netflix’s fast.com which show’s your ip just to confirm I was connecting over v6.

Maybe your ISP is really tunneling v6 over v4?
Post reply on HN