Top
Best
New

Posted by Aaronmacaron 1 day ago

IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark(www.google.com)
760 points | 544 commentspage 3
nfriedly 4 hours ago|
I just recently noticed that my ISP, Frontier, quietly turned on IPv6. I know it wasn't enabled back in December, so it has to have been sometime in the past few months.
thescriptkiddie 4 hours ago|
interestingly my ISP, at&t, quietly turned off ipv6. not sure exactly when it happened, i should get around to complaining about it but i hate making phone calls
jcalvinowens 13 hours ago||
I consistently get 100x as many captchas from google over V6 as over V4, on many different networks: it is obnoxious and obviously broken on their end.
traderj0e 1 hour ago|
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?
menotyou 14 hours ago||
Currently my IPS provides IPv6, but I set up my firewall in the access router of my home LAN to block all IPv6 in both directions.

- I don't want to have a permanent global unchanged ipv6 as in id of my traffic.

- IPv6 privacy extensions would change that but then I can not reach my two devices I do want to reach from outside anymore as my access router only supports DynDNS for its own address and no NAT in IPv6

fleetfox 14 hours ago|
And how exactly is your NATed ipv4 address better? This seems backwards.
menotyou 13 hours ago||
Router has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT port forwarding to the reverse proxy.

So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions?

I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.

Dagger2 13 hours ago|||
Privacy extensions are additional addresses that are used by default for outbound connections. You still have the non-privacy address, which doesn't change; put that one into DNS.

This approach prevents outbound connections from leaking the address needed to connect to your servers. On v4, it's likely that any outbound connection from your network gives the server the IP they need to do that.

menotyou 12 hours ago||
My ISP changes the prefix on a regular base (and on request)
Dagger2 6 hours ago||
So you'll never have a permanent unchanging v6 address to ID your traffic with.

Privacy extensions are orthogonal here; they only affect the suffix, not the prefix. As for dealing with a changing prefix... I'm afraid you'll just have to find some way to automate the DNS updates. You can do it with a program running on one of the servers -- I can't suggest a specific one offhand since I have a static prefix and haven't needed it, but they do exist.

icedchai 13 hours ago|||
How often does your IPv4 address actually change?
menotyou 12 hours ago||
Never checked. But it does change once in a while. The router has a dyndns function which updates a DNS entry, but only for the router itself. But this is sufficient for the NAT port forwarding.
icedchai 10 hours ago||
Ok, so most of the time you are trackable by your public IPv4. The situation is not much better.
menotyou 9 hours ago||
Let's say when your ipv6 prefix changes it is almost the same situation. Only that ipv4 bundles all traffic of all devices on one ip which obfuscates a bit.

But having the ipv6 prefix change you get a pile of problems (DNS, firewall), you don't have with ipv4.

icedchai 9 hours ago||
The IPv6 prefix changes are disruptive, I agree. My prefix has been stable for a couple years, but on another ISP it would change every few months and was certainly annoying.
jl6 14 hours ago||
Everyone's saying progress is slow, but maybe this is just how long it takes to do massive decentralized global migrations affecting billions of people. What are we comparing against? Maybe the ICE-to-EV transition?
nlitened 11 hours ago||
For example, compared to migration from 3G to 4G networks. As I understand, from the launch of 4G to complete shutdown of 3G it took around 12—14 years.
easterncalculus 7 hours ago|||
World IPv6 Day was in 2011, so 15 years since then. This is also requiring a consumer hardware and software upgrade on both the client and server (resource they're accessing). GitHub doesn't have to implement 4G support.
zrail 10 hours ago||||
A reasonably fair comparison. The ISPs had a much stronger incentive to finish the migration, though, because the 3g spectrum could just get turned around and used for 4g after rollout. IPv6 doesn't really have that strong of an incentive structure now that CGNAT is a well-developed technology.
vel0city 7 hours ago|||
One major difference in the 3G->4G and now 4G->5G conversion was that was largely a single-party change in the end to actually implement. The client and the server hosting an application doesn't care about whether that traffic is over 3G or 4G or IP over Avian Carriers as long as the packets get there in a reasonable time. Going from IPv4 to IPv6 requires lots of very different players to all work together to make the transition, meanwhile for a carrier to go from 3G to 4G its largely on them and their direct contractors.
tonymet 8 hours ago||
Latin1 to UTF8
umanwizard 7 hours ago||
And I still, to this day, see mojibake from time to time.
tonymet 4 hours ago||
The exception that proves its success
ruuda 15 hours ago||
Finally https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9558/50-of-users-access-... can resolve!
ButlerianJihad 14 hours ago||
One of the foremost obstacles to wide adoption is that IPv4 still works great and it's ubiquitous. There is no advantage or up-side to deprecating or abandoning IPv4 support at all. The only result of disabling IPv4 is a denial of service to a certain sector of customers or clients.

The only way this will change is by increasing pressure on the resource of IPv4 networks. It was a few years ago that AWS broke the news to me that I'd be paying for IPv4 addresses but IPv6 would remain free. If enough services are forced, financially, to abandon an IPv4 presence, then their clients would be likewise forced to adopt IPv6 in order to retain connectivity.

But with the ubiquity of CGNAT and other technologies, it seems unrealistic that IPv4 will become so rare that it becomes prohibitively expensive, or must be widely abandoned. So that availability of the legacy protocol will inhibit widespread adoption and transitions to IPv6.

kalleboo 13 hours ago||
Yeah the reality is that the Internet is centralized now. There is no reason for two computers on the internet to connect to each other anymore, as long as you can reach Google/Microsoft/Amazon/CloudFlare, that's all anyone needs.

Just log onto AOL and type in keyword "WALMART" and save! It's friendly and safe.

ifwinterco 14 hours ago|||
In theory you can save quite a bit on AWS costs by having instances that can only use v6.

But in reality at the moment there will probably always be at least one thing that only works with v4 a lot of the time.

Incentives are misaligned as well - it saves you money as the EC2 instance user, but the owner of the website you're trying to access has to support v4 anyway so they don't have a big incentive to change anything

netheril96 13 hours ago||
Maybe it's time to tax IPv4 usages or holders.
pzo 13 hours ago||
I wish EU make it mandatory at least for all ISP to make mandatory support for IPv6 by end of this decade. I think that would push the needle even globally.
sschueller 16 hours ago||
My next project, IPv6 in my homelab. It will be a challenge but it is time. My ISP gives me a static /48, I should use it.
jeroenhd 14 hours ago|
I recommend going through Hurricane Electric's multiple-choice tests. It's not exactly a how-to guide or course, but it'll mention all of the terms and technologies you need to look up to get things right. They'll even send you a free T-shirt if you make it through all of them.

The most difficult parts for a homelab in my experience is getting Docker to play nicely. All of the other stuff sort of just works these days. Even things like using DHCPv6 prefix delegation to obtain a routable subnet is almost trivial with how well-supported the protocol is with modern networking software.

sschueller 14 hours ago||
Where do I find that? https://www.ipv6.he.net/ has an invalid certificate and is the first result on Google.
jeroenhd 13 hours ago|||
Their www sub-subdomain is broken it seems.

https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ has instructions on how to get started.

elevendroids 14 hours ago|||
You need to omit the "www" subdomain: https://ipv6.he.net
ff317 7 hours ago||
Random related data point: for HTTP requests to Wikipedia (and related) for the past 7d, the IP protocol split is roughly 35% IPv6 / 65% IPv4. (this is counting by-request, so heavy usage from a small number of IPv4s can skew it).
sedatk 7 hours ago|
> heavy usage from a small number of IPv4s

Basically, all crawlers.

10000truths 6 hours ago||
If be curious to see what the IPv4/IPv6 breakdown looks like when looking at HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 connections only, which should exclude the vast majority of crawlers.
davidkuennen 16 hours ago|
Setting up my own server (migrating off GCP LB) taught me so much about networking. I was especially surprised that providing IPv6 is such a performance boost for low bandwidth phones since they mostly only operate on IPv6 by now and IPv4 needs some sort of special roundtrip.
emj 14 hours ago|
Cool! Could you give some concrete examples of apps or traffic patterns where you think IPv6 may noticeably improve performance on phones? Are you mainly referring to NAT traversal during connection setup, or to something that also affects traffic after the connection is established?
Dagger2 8 hours ago||
Many mobile ISPs handle v4 via NAT64 or CGNAT. Routers capable of doing those are far more expensive than regular routers, so there tends to be fewer of them. v4 traffic has to travel out of its way to reach one of those routers, whereas v6 traffic can be handed off sooner with a more direct physical path.

It affects anything where latency matters, e.g. from Facebook: "We’ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15 percent faster over IPv6." (https://engineering.fb.com/2015/09/14/networking-traffic/ipv...).

More comments...