Top
Best
New

Posted by Aaronmacaron 1 day ago

IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark(www.google.com)
768 points | 559 commentspage 5
Leomuck 12 hours ago|
What I have asked myself the last few months: I've read about IPv4 becoming sparce a few years ago. I haven't read much about it lately. And I've thought maybe the advance of cloud computing and load balancer kind of mitigated the issue of sparce IP4?
neojima 11 hours ago|
It officially started becoming scarce in 2011, when IANA, and then APNIC, depleted their IPv4 "free" pools, FWIW. Things have only gotten worse from there.

Cloud computing doesn't mitigate IPv4 issues, it just moves it around. The big cloud providers buy up any IPv4 space they can, leaving less for everyone else. The difference is that they then get to collect rent, by the hour, on any IPs their customers use.

Load balancers...yeah, actually that is a valid approach to reduce IPv4 use, assuming you mean the "reverse proxy" variety of load balancer. Cloudflare's proxy service is doing exactly this, on a pretty huge scale. (CLoudflare can then send the traffic on to an IPv6-only server, regardless of the client's protocol.) The downside is, like cloud, consolidating a lot of infrastructure into the hands of a small number of companies.

pbw 13 hours ago||
This is only 33 years after I took a networking class and learned all about IPv6 and the IPv4 address space crisis.
neojima 11 hours ago|
This is pretty remarkable, given that RFC 1883 is only 30 years old.
artooro 6 hours ago||
Been waiting for this for years! Now I just wish my local ISP (rural Canada) supported it.
ghoshbishakh 17 hours ago||
Countries like India have higher adoption (>70%) because of 4G/5G abundance. Legacy broadband providers hold back IPv6 usage.
tormeh 13 hours ago||
As long as no significant websites are IPv6-only qnd no significant user base is IPv6-only, why would anyone join IPv6? What proponents could do is make their websites IPv6-only. The IETF website, for instance, should be IPv6-only.
BartjeD 17 hours ago||
In before the dinosaurs arrive to complain about the challenges of moving to IPv6 and why NAT and IPv4 are better. ;)
torcete 17 hours ago||
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?

Dagger2 15 hours ago||
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-dr...
badgersnake 15 hours ago||
Guess you didn’t read it.
anilakar 9 hours ago||
15 years ago I would have dismissed this immediately as an elaborate troll but nowadays you cannot be sure anymore.

I'm suggesting moving on to IPvNN which requires device and ISP forced guarantees that the originator is not under the effect nor the lack of any medication or other substance, not being coerced and not using non-human assistants in content creation.

torcete 8 hours ago|||
That goes for me?
anilakar 7 hours ago||
Depends on the degrees of separation between you and the draft author.

I guess we both agree that both humor and sarcasm are difficult to convey on the internet and LLMs do not make the job any easier :-)

equinox6380 15 hours ago||
The failure wasn't in the technical design of v6, but in the economic assumption. When the cost of migration exceeds the cost of 'hacks' like NAT, people will stick to the hacks for as long as humanly possible.
zeristor 17 hours ago|
This is the global curve, it looks to be flattening I had thought it would be more asymptotic to 100%.

My company is ipv4 still, and some customers are having issues with ipv6 only connections.

Also we log the ip addresses, and that's only in ipv4.

More comments...