6 ms·

Wrong interpretation: the linked chart shows client-side adoption among Google users In practice today IPv6 is a kind of high functionality NAT for consumer de

Wrong interpretation: the linked chart shows client-side adoption among Google users In practice today IPv6 is a kind of high functionality NAT for consumer devices. A more interesting statistic would be server-side adoption.

jl6 7y ago
"Google users" is approximately everybody, and surely client-side adoption is what drives server-side adoption?
- paulsutter 7y ago
  If it’s not measured we don’t know
- cat199 7y ago
  > "Google users" is approximately everybody perhaps every 'body', but not at all every 'device'..
judge2020 7y ago
And more importantly, server-side adoption excluding Cloudflare, or at least a breakdown by IP and not by website.
- sp332 7y ago
  Instead of excluding CF, I'd like to see server stats weighted by popularity. I'd bet that the concentration of traffic to just a few mega-sites means most people can now get by just fine with IPv6.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    You might be surprised. For reasons I can't begin to fathom, a coffee shop near me used to have its wifi router set up to only permit connections to external sites over IPv6. I was legitimately surprised at how many sites I couldn't access from there, including sites from Fortune 50 companies and big tech firms, who you'd expect to be among those who'd be on top of this sort of thing. (Including, ahem, HN.)
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      Enterprise has a lot less pressure to switch, because they have existing capital investments into, for instance, large, expensive IPv4-only firewalls that aren't currently "broken", and large private IPv4 subnets already walled off with enough IP addresses for their device/asset catalogs. It maybe shouldn't be a surprise that IPv6 has seen much faster consumer adoption comparatively, as consumer ISPs face much less steady/predictable device growth and sometimes much more complex routing scenarios (cell towers have much more complicated internet traffic routing needs than wired ethernet in an office park somewhere).
    - dang 7y ago
      It's on our list. Hoping to get there soon.
- Dagger2 7y ago
  This is much less important. A legacy v4-only server can be reached from v6 via NAT64 (which basically works like NAT but with v6 on the inside), so there's no particular need to get rid of all of them. It's much more important to get rid of legacy v4-only clients, to make it possible to run v6-only servers.
mikepurvis 7y ago
The server side story is terrible. Until I switched my stuff to Ubiquiti, I was having a recurring issue where my old TP-Link router would lose its mind and refuse to pass any IPv4 traffic, but IPv6 was fine. The result? Facebook, Google, and Netflix still worked, but the entire rest of the internet would just disappear— poof.

jl6 7y ago

"Google users" is approximately everybody, and surely client-side adoption is what drives server-side adoption?

paulsutter 7y ago
If it’s not measured we don’t know
cat199 7y ago
> "Google users" is approximately everybody perhaps every 'body', but not at all every 'device'..

judge2020 7y ago

And more importantly, server-side adoption excluding Cloudflare, or at least a breakdown by IP and not by website.

sp332 7y ago
Instead of excluding CF, I'd like to see server stats weighted by popularity. I'd bet that the concentration of traffic to just a few mega-sites means most people can now get by just fine with IPv6.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  You might be surprised. For reasons I can't begin to fathom, a coffee shop near me used to have its wifi router set up to only permit connections to external sites over IPv6. I was legitimately surprised at how many sites I couldn't access from there, including sites from Fortune 50 companies and big tech firms, who you'd expect to be among those who'd be on top of this sort of thing. (Including, ahem, HN.)
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Enterprise has a lot less pressure to switch, because they have existing capital investments into, for instance, large, expensive IPv4-only firewalls that aren't currently "broken", and large private IPv4 subnets already walled off with enough IP addresses for their device/asset catalogs. It maybe shouldn't be a surprise that IPv6 has seen much faster consumer adoption comparatively, as consumer ISPs face much less steady/predictable device growth and sometimes much more complex routing scenarios (cell towers have much more complicated internet traffic routing needs than wired ethernet in an office park somewhere).
  - dang 7y ago
    It's on our list. Hoping to get there soon.
Dagger2 7y ago
This is much less important. A legacy v4-only server can be reached from v6 via NAT64 (which basically works like NAT but with v6 on the inside), so there's no particular need to get rid of all of them. It's much more important to get rid of legacy v4-only clients, to make it possible to run v6-only servers.

mikepurvis 7y ago

The server side story is terrible. Until I switched my stuff to Ubiquiti, I was having a recurring issue where my old TP-Link router would lose its mind and refuse to pass any IPv4 traffic, but IPv6 was fine. The result? Facebook, Google, and Netflix still worked, but the entire rest of the internet would just disappear— poof.