8 ms·
IPv6 Wall of Shame
- ephimetheus 10y agoMy only contact with IPv6 so far has been trying to get port forwarding working with my router at home. Vodafone uses a proxy to tunnel IPv6 to IPv4 to the outside, and that proxy does not support port forwarding, since you don't have a unique IPv4 address. After being in contact with Vodafone, it seems like there is no solution that does not cost additional money. It's 2016 btw, wtf
- asdfaoeu 10y agoWhy do you want port forwarding with IPv6? Or do you want IPv4 port forwarding when your ISP hasn't assigned you an IP. The first shouldn't be required since you would have a public IPv6 address and the second is just a fact of life that we'll have to pay extra if you want a IPv4 address in future.
- phicoh 10y agoThat would be the same for any carrier grade NAT. If the NAT was just from IPv4 to IPv4, you would have the same problem. Public IPv4 addresses now cost money, so you can't expect to get a public address for free anymore. Of course, with a public address costing around $10 at the moment, it should not add more than $1 or so to your monthly fee.
- webtechgal 10y ago> it should not add more than $1 or so to your monthly fee. Quite true. Most hosting companies charge around $1/mo. for a dedicated IPv4. (Naturally, not for shared plans but for VPS/dedicated boxes etc.)
- toast0 10y agodedicated IPs for shared hosting is a thing too (commonly needed for SSL virtualhosting when clients don't do SNI)
- hollander 10y agoI thought port forwarding was a thing of the past with IPv6, or am I wrong?
- Cameron_D 10y agoIt is, sounds like he was trying to port-forward for IPv4, but can't as his ISP uses a CGN or 464XLAT or something to provide IPv4 access - so port forwarding isn't an option. All that needs to be done is add the appropriate firewall rules (probably on the router and computer) to allow traffic for that port and it'll be accessible from the outside over IPv6.
- watwatwatwat 10y agoI'm more interested in ISPs not supporting ipv6.
- trolleibusov 10y agoNot very interesting. There are "over 9000" of them.
- watwatwatwat 10y agoAnd there are over a billion sites. This wall shows the most "popular" sites. I'd like to see the same for the most "popular" ISPs. Getting ISPs to implement IPv6 is important because otherwise is impossible to test your own site and see if it works over ipv6 (i've been there).
- ars 10y agoEasy enough to sort by size. Verizon is the big one. That they use IPv6 for their wireless division just makes it more ridiculous that they don't for their wired division - they clearly have the institutional knowledge to make it work.
- phicoh 10y agoExcept that you probably want a different solution on wired. On mobile just about everybody is running with IPv6-native and the NAT64/DNS64 for IPv4. On wired, you may want to do something different. For example, if some of your customers need a pubic IPv4 address, then you want dual stack. You have to deal with CPEs doing IPv6 correctly, etc. So it is better to see it as a completely different project. The core routing IPv6 is the same, but that tends to be the easy part.
- clarry 10y ago> For example, if some of your customers need a pubic IPv4 address [..] I don't see how this has anything to do with wired vs wireless.
- Kartificial 10y agoFor those who are looking to navigate to some of those pages, be aware that there are a few nsfw sites on the wall of shame.
- akerro 10y agoMore pornsites moved to IPv6 than amazons.
- kilian 10y agoPardon my ignorance, but why does it matter that a website is accessible also via an alternative IP-that-happens-to-be-longer? If you have a perfectly good IPv4 address, why also get an IPv6 one?
- imtringued 10y agoBecause a lot of people don't have a perfectly good (defined as not shared with anyone else) IPv4 adress. Especially not with mobile internet.
- phicoh 10y agoWhat if you don't have a perfectly good IPv4 address? Fraud relating to obtaining IPv4 addresses is really ramping up, so I guess they must worth serious money now.
- sneak 10y agoIt requires that your users maintain dual-stack access and infrastructure, and there are a lot more of them than of you.
- hollander 10y agoBecause the IPv4 space has ran out. Nowadays they have to use all kind of tricks to share these addresses. With all mobile phones, and millions of new users in Africa, Asia and South America, plus the Internet of Things, you simply have to use a new system, and you have to transition to that. In the future, people might not be able to use IPv4 at all, or all the time, and then you need your website to be available via both IPv4 and IPv6.
- Symbiote 10y agoCan anyone from Africa (especially), Asia, South America or a Pacific island comment on the difference with IPv4 and IPv6 sites? Can you measure a difference in speed, and is it noticeable to the average user? We have a /23 of nice IP addresses. There's no ugly NAT or private addressing at our end, so that's not an argument for us to add IPv6 support. They're part of a university's /15 assignment, so it's not realistic to give them up or sell them. We'll get IPv6 support eventually, I'd guess in 2018-19 or so, but I'm curious if the lack of support causes problems for users in Africa in the mean time.
- koytch 10y agoStrange to see reddit and stackoverflow not supporting IPv6.
- scrollaway 10y agoAWS doesn't support IPv6 natively. I believe this explains a bunch of the items on that list (though not SO, I think they're on Azure?)
- Arnavion 10y agoSO hosts on their own infrastructure, and I believe use Akamai for CDN. https://nickcraver.com/blog/2016/02/17/stack-overflow-the-architecture-2016-edition/ https://nickcraver.com/blog/2016/02/17/stack-overflow-the-ar...
- hollander 10y agoAnd as Microsoft, Bing and MSN don't support IPv6, you can assume that Azure does not as well. And it does not, despite the BS story about their leading role: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/faq/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/faq/
- vetinari 10y agoMicrosoft.com does support IPv6 (Bing and MSN do not). Also apple.com does support IPv6.
- soneil 10y agoIt appears apple.com and microsoft.com are failing this for the same reason; apple.com does not have an AAAA record. www.apple.com does. If you visit apple.com over ipv4 or dualstack, apple.com will answer and redirect you to www.apple.com, which is dual-stacked. But if you visit using only ipv6, apple.com is not found, so you're never redirected to the capable www.apple.com. (ditto s/apple/microsoft/ - I just picked the example quickest to type)
- sneak 10y agoThis is good, but it is the long tail that really sucks about the v6 transition. Hopefully when this board is green, it will cause a tipping point.
- laksjd 10y agoI think the long tail isn't an issue. We'll probably have dual stack equipment for the next few decades. What matters is getting the large websites on IPv6 so that people browsing on mobile (usually NAT64) or developing nations (usual CGNAT) can get a non-sucky web experience. Heck, if all the sites on that page where green, mobile Internet would suddenly be a lot better since the carrier NAT boxes would have to deal with ~90% less traffic. The big issue here are AWS/azure dragging their heels (and I assume some CDNs, too)
- teekert 10y agoHmm, I feel I have never been on a IPv6 network, I have never seen myself get an IPv6 address, from time to time I make DO droplets and assign them and IPv6 address, the I copy it into the browser address bar, no luck. I'm quite comfortable using network technology and terminology but I have no idea what I can do to use or speed up the use of IPv6. I'd love my home server to have a unique IP address for the rest of my life. How can I do it? Will I just at some day, receive such an address from my ISP? My domain name provider supports IPv6 and my servers do, yet, I never managed to connect over IPv6. It annoys me to be honest. Is it all at the ISPs at the moment?
- hollander 10y agoInstall the DNS Flusher addon in your browser. This addon can display the IP-address of the site you're visiting in the status bar. I see IPv6 addresses all the time for many sites, although not this one. This addon does nothing much for me except informing me that I use IPv6.
- teekert 10y agoAh, good idea, this add-on is also nice: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sixornot/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sixornot/?src... Also indicates if you are seeing a cached version.
- hollander 10y agoWhat I like about DNS Flusher on Firefox, that you can put the icon in the status bar, where it displays the IP address all the time. For that you need a status bar addon of course.
- icebraining 10y agoSome people use an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel like [1] while their ISP drags their feet. Still, I don't see the point for my personal stuff. [1] https://tunnelbroker.net/ https://tunnelbroker.net/
- hollander 10y agoSo it would be interesting to see which if these sites are hosted on AWS or Azure, as these seem to have no support for IPv6.
- rdallman10 10y agomaybe it'd get more adoption if it actually worked: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/5618#issuecomment-246040037 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/5618#issuecomment-24... -- more shame on the people using it at this point
- tashbarg 10y agoAlmost half of Belgium and over a fourth of the USA is using IPv6 to connect to the internet just fine and you have the audacity to claim it doesn't work because there's a bug in the implementation of Linux? This is like saying DEFLATE doesn't work because someone committed a bug to zlib. Shame on you.
- pjc50 10y agoFrom that page: > "Everyone who's seeing this error on their system is running a package of the Linux kernel on their distribution that's far too old and lacks the fixes for this particular problem."
- 0x0 10y agoGetting an SSL error on this page "invalid CA". Probably because I revoked StartSSL and WoSign after reading https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security.policy/k9PBmyLCi8I%5B1-25%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security...
- vacri 10y agoWell, yes. It's a StartCom certificate, so it will be invalid if you have revoked StartSSL stuff.
- 0x0 10y agoObviously. Wanted to give a heads up that me (and several others) are (voluntarily) unable to read websites using StartSSL certs, at least until mozilla possibly eventually takes action against these CAs, when it might become an even bigger problem.
- tominous 10y agoIronically this site would be on a wall of shame for lack of color-blind accessibility.
- daenney 10y agoI'm surprised there's so many Asian companies/sites that don't support v6. Probably has to do with being hosted on some sort of cloud but considering v6 is fairly important to that region it's interesting they're willing to rely on ISPs providing NAT/DNS64 for customers instead.
- morecoffee 10y agoPresumably it is related to the widespread use of IE6: they are running old bootleg versions of Windows, which dont do IPv6.
- krylon 10y agoIIRC, Windows has supported IPv6 since at least Windows XP. According to Wikipedia, even since Windows 2000. (Of course, IE6 might not support v6... I never tried.)
- scandox 10y agoHad my first ever real world interaction with IPv6 yesterday. Running iptables firewall on a server. Checked what's my ip address at a customer site. Saw an IPv6 address. Ok, no problem add it to the iptables rules. Oh yeah that doesn't work. Duh. So I guess I have to learn to use ip6tables now...
- jlgaddis 10y agoHopefully everyone has default deny policies set up in ip6tables if they aren't using IPv6 or don't have any plans to. Otherwise you might wake up one day to find traffic you didn't expect hitting your hosts.
- nickcw 10y agoThe list of IPv6 adopters in that list is dominated by Google or Google owned sites. If you took them out it would only be 13/124 = 10% adoption.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoIf you remove Google sites from the numerator, you have to remove them from the denominator too.
- vacri 10y agoMore interesting is this: from the original 128, out of the 44 sites that do ipv6, only 16 aren't google-run. That's a terrible report card.
- laksjd 10y agoIt makes sense that Google would be fully IPv6 enabled, after all they are the mobile-first company and IPv6 can make mobile connection experiences a lot better, especially during peak network usage times.
- Decade 10y agoAmazon is an egregiously bad actor, here. Through AWS, they shape the near future of computing, and they fill it with RFC 1918 non-interoperable address blocks and limited public address space. The path of least resistance on AWS is IPv4-only, which means NAT64 and stupid stuff from the 90’s.
- avian 10y agoLet's not forget that http://news.ycombinator.com http://news.ycombinator.com is also still IPv4 only.
- morecoffee 10y agoIf the creators read this, please add MX shaming! Some sites have AAAA records but still use IPv4 MX records.
- jlgaddis 10y agoI administer several mail servers and I honestly don't have any plans to receive mail over IPv6 -- not until the blacklist situation is figured out, at least.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- krylon 10y agoHuh. Just the other day I was listening to a podcast on IPv6 (http://cre.fm/cre197-ipv6 http://cre.fm/cre197-ipv6 -- it is in German, though), and they mentioned a few of these sites as not supporting IPv6, yet. But that episode is (almost to the day) four years old, and most of the sites mentioned back then still are not reachable via IPv6... It is a little sad.
- kafetz 10y agoIt is funny how Netflix is IPv6 enabled but AWS isnt ?! I wonder where Netflix is hosted....
- micro-ram 10y agoInstall IPvFoo in Chrome and watch how many servers have embraced IPv6.
- teddyh 10y agoThere are some subtle problems which can affect sites trying to use IPv6, that may prevent IPv6-only users from using the site. A site can have an IPv6 DNS record, and be reachable by IPv6, but the DNS nameservers for its domain must also be reachable by IPv6. In particular, the glue records for the DNS name servers for the domain must also contain IPv6 addresses. (This problem currently affects the “ntp.org” domain – an IPv6-only host can not resolve the name “pool.ntp.org” – since at least two years ago. I did report it at the time.) What I’m saying is that these kinds of problems are not reflected in the site, which only reports if a site has an IPv6 DNS record.