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

611–620 of 643 posts

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#611

Post by traderj0e »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #571
traderj0e wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP reputation is a tough problem with a lot of establishment behind v4. Even if they were to build up v6 reputation, since v6 addresses are cheaper, wouldn't they have lower rep?

The "reputation" concept has to be applied to network blocks in IPv6, because of privacy addresses, and they very clearly aren't doing that for whatever reason. I get at least one captcha a day from a stock Android phone that's been connecting from the same damn /64 for almost a whole year.

But there are way more /64s than /32s. They could apply it to /32s in ipv6, but then customers would share rep unless ISPs lease out /32s instead. Unfortunately gotta pay to play.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#612

Post by p_l »

tialaramex wrote: post #257
throw0101a wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is (AIUI) 100% IPv6-only on their internal network, and has been for many years: * https://engineering.fb.com/2017/01/17/production-engineering... * https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2014/09/facebook-launch... IPv4 is actually the "leftover" stuff they have to deal with at the front end. But they are an eye-balls heavy service, with a lot of mobile devices, which also tend to be IPv6-native.

It also just takes actual policy will. Somebody has to actually say "No" when the supplier who promised an IPv6 product says afterwards actually they meant IPv6 "ready" and they should have put an asterisk because really only the next version will be "ready", and er, so the product they've delivered doesn't actually work with IPv6 but that's fine right? "No". Not every human is psychologically prepared to do that. Th…

Suppliers doing that kind of trick is what really killed GOSIP, and why the new v6 mandates in USGOV do not allow waivers for vendors, only for individual specific use cases

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#613

Post by jcalvinowens »

traderj0e wrote: post #611
jcalvinowens wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "reputation" concept has to be applied to network blocks in IPv6, because of privacy addresses, and they very clearly aren't doing that for whatever reason. I get at least one captcha a day from a stock Android phone that's been connecting from the same damn /64 for almost a whole year.

But there are way more /64s than /32s. They could apply it to /32s in ipv6, but then customers would share rep unless ISPs lease out /32s instead. Unfortunately gotta pay to play.

That could never work, my entire ISP is a /32

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#614

Post by pocksuppet »

torcete wrote: post #110

They have released the draft for IPv8 two days ago: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html Does it mean we better put our chips on IPv8?

Some internet-drafts contain useful knowledge because they specify an existing protocol that never continued through the IETF process to reach the level of an informational standard. For example, TACACS+ is best specified in a dead internet-draft.

However, in most cases, internet-drafts are just that - drafts. They are usually requests for comment (ironically enough) on the author's idea. Someone had an idea and put it out there to see what other people think. Sometimes they don't even get to that stage but die immediately upon being uploaded as the author realizes they are silly.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#615

Post by boredatoms »

ok123456 wrote: post #501
boredatoms wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing stops you running a NAT for v6 too, its just people tend to choose not to when given the choice

I set up NAT66 recently with DHCPv6. The IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are practically the same, except IPv6 has a prefix and a double colon as the last separator. This really should be how SOHO routers do IPv6 out of the box. Most people don't want 1:1 addressing for their entire home or office.

Q on your setup

Are you using ULA prefix for the nat66/dhcp6, are you also allowing GUA address assignment via slaac? Im wondering how it works out with source-selection

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#616

Post by anbotero »

progbits wrote: post #161
colmmacc wrote: post #143

If GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks. This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update policies pro-actively. And cu…

Anyone who relies on IP filtering for security deserves to have it broken. Change my mind.

Actual curiosity, how would the new filtering be/is?

I've done a lot of IP filtering, it's what a lot of systems and services allow us to, so I'm curious what the IPv6 mechanism is

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#617

Post by traderj0e »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #613
traderj0e wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are way more /64s than /32s. They could apply it to /32s in ipv6, but then customers would share rep unless ISPs lease out /32s instead. Unfortunately gotta pay to play.

That could never work, my entire ISP is a /32

I'm guessing because the spec defines a network as a /64. Couldn't the ISP buy more space if they wanted to?

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#618

Post by traderj0e »

orangeboats wrote: post #584
traderj0e wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, a large portion of those ipv6 Google searches are afterwards connecting to an ipv4 host.

I doubt it honestly. Most people are connecting to sites like Youtube, Instagram etc., which do actually support IPv6. It's how I get 60~80% IPv6 traffic on my home network. A great portion of it was because of my mom watching Youtube. Even when you discount the services run by FAANG, for personal sites, Cloudflare and GitHub Pages (but surprisingly, not GitHub itself) support IPv6 and enable IPv6 support by default.

Actually yeah, especially if you measure it in bandwidth, and even if you just measure it in requests

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#619

Post by throwawaypath »

farfatched wrote: post #47
panny wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want IPv6. Why would I? It's like a permanent global cookie. You're uniquely tagged and identifiable on every website you visit. >it's in their best interest to ensure users can't host services without them. They'll just keep blocking port 25. IPv6 won't change anything with regards to self hosting.

My OS gives me IPv6 privacy addresses out-the-box which rotate every few hours.

The prefix is your globally unique identifier. "Privacy addresses" provide zero privacy.

Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

#620

Post by throwawaypath »

kstrauser wrote: post #310
panny wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want IPv6. Why would I? It's like a permanent global cookie. You're uniquely tagged and identifiable on every website you visit. >it's in their best interest to ensure users can't host services without them. They'll just keep blocking port 25. IPv6 won't change anything with regards to self hosting.

> You're uniquely tagged and identifiable on every website you visit. Almost every modern OS enables IPv6 privacy extensions, ie address randomization, by default.

The prefix is your globally unique identifier. "Privacy addresses" provide zero privacy.
Post reply on HN