6 ms·

Can someone explain why these have such value? What systems cannot handle IPV6 yet?

casperb 6y ago
Like 60-70% of all internet users: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption&tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...
- Spivak 6y ago
  This is a little misleading. This just measures users that are using IPv6 not users that would be able to use IPv6 if IPv4 stopped working. My local network and ISP are perfectly capable of using IPv6 but you have to call them to switch.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Zoom into 2020, and you can clearly see when the lockdowns due to the pandemic start on that chart. The other interesting artifact is that it looks like IPv6 network rollout tends to almost exclusively happen in the April-July timeframe.
gertrunde 6y ago
Imagine that you have two ways of addressing your system. 1) Allows you to access almost 100% of your potential customers. 2) Allows you to access around 35% of your potential customers. Which one would you choose any why?
- ArchOversight 6y ago
  Both. Especially if that one with 35% of my customers provides me with lower latency, higher throughput and costs me less in CPU time/power to run my traffic across. The rest of the people I need to eat the cost for...
  - mypalmike 6y ago
    Are you implying that using IPv6 lowers latency and increases throughput?
    - ArchOversight 6y ago
      Yes. https://www.retevia.net/fast/ https://www.retevia.net/fast/ The throughput issue may be because the IPv6 network is less utilized and or uses more efficient routing, but the latency is less. Here's Facebook's information on how IPv6 is faster: https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/ https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time... > We’ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15 percent faster over IPv6.
      - samoa42 6y ago
        the wording "can be faster" tells that this is the upper bound. ie. it is generally about the same, while it can be 15% faster or slower than the ip4 average. sample sizes are most likely somewhat different aswell .
haskaalo 6y ago
I believe most home ISP doesn't support IPv6 in many countries like Canada. Thus, resulting in IPv4 still being considered as "default". Also, with the increasing numbers of devices connected everyday, we're running out of IPv4. Think of the demand vs supply curve (demand high, supply low, result = higher price/ip) You can check IPv6 adoption in each country here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...
- bluGill 6y ago
  Most is incorrect. Many big ISPs support IPv6. The IPv6 charts notice more IPv4 when people are working, and IPv6 while people at home (nights and weekends) because so many ISPs do support IPv6 and it just works. The big cable ISPs and the big cell phone (not sure if all, but some at least) support IPv6 to everyone and have been doing it for a long time because it just works (they had to do some effort early to get it to work).
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    The cellular carriers are now doing CGNAT for IPv4, so supporting IPv6 means less traffic has to run through their CGNAT gear.
    - usr1106 6y ago
      I have noticed that when looking at the internal IPv4 address of my phone. What's the technical difference between Carrier Grade NAT and "traditional" NAT? /Not working in networking
      - bluGill 6y ago
        From what I can tell it is just the power. Traditional/home NAT runs on low powered computers. CNAT is the same thing, but with very powerful computers with a lot of memory so they can handle thousands of users (possibly each with gigabit internet connections!) behind one IP address.
projektfu 6y ago
Residential and SOHO gateways usually don’t offer much configuration for ipv6, and it’s generally an afterthought in their interfaces, even if it is increasingly being used.
mrweasel 6y ago
I would guess around half. We've bought brand new Cisco gear, which for some unholy reason didn't support IPv6. We've worked with vendors who told us that they've been supporting IPv6 for years, a decade even, but try to enable it, and you'll see that no one actually ever used it, and it doesn't work. Amazon could perhaps do with less IPv4 addresses, if people did misuse them. I work with a client who have a public IPv4 address associated with every single EC2 instance they have, despite only 5% of them have public facing services. They just got in the habit of assigning a public IP I guess.
- luhn 6y ago
  I do the same thing. Without IPv4 for an EC2 instance, your options are: - No outbound internet access - IPv6-only outbound internet access - NAT, for an addition monthly and per-GB fee Given you can assign a public IPv4 address at no additional cost and have everything just work, there's little reason not to have one.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    So you have everything in a public subnet? That's asking for trouble. Sure, if you have a tiny deployment you may not care (and the NAT fees may be a significant portion of that). At some point, the NAT fees are noise - it amounts to ~ a dollar per day in us-west-2. Data processing charge is $0.045 It becomes way more valuable to ensure IT security, regulators and auditors that no, no inbound connections are allowed no matter what anyone does with the security group rules. Also note that the AWS managed NAT gateways haven't been there forever. The option, before they were available, was to use one or more of your instances to NAT traffic. That's still available and could be an alternative, while reducing your potential footprint.
- ArchOversight 6y ago
  Why shouldn't someone assign a public IPv4 address to a server? The whole NAT game is just that, a game. Also, NAT gateways cost money in AWS, so much that it is a running joke: https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1294047698560012289 https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1294047698560012289 https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1293366642567651330 https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1293366642567651330 NAT doesn't add any additional security, Security Groups are fantastic at allowing you define your ingress/egress between instances and protecting them from harm. All my instances get an IPv4 address an an IPv6 address by default so that there is parity. The fact that the IPv4 address still goes through some sort of NAT on AWS's side (1:1 but still NAT) kind of bothers me.
Isthatablackgsd 6y ago
ISP is one of them around the world, some of them don't have the support for IPv6 yet. Devices, you will be surprised a lot of devices that does not have support for IPv6.
josephg 6y ago
My residential broadband connection here in Australia still doesn’t support ipv6. I email them about it every year or so to keep it on their radar, but “they have no plans at this time to support ipv6”. So long as the internet keeps working, my isp won’t care. I set up a HE ipv6 bridge, but it adds noticeable latency whenever it’s used, for sites like YouTube and Netflix. I wonder if we need regulation to force the transition. The move to v6 might never complete otherwise.
- hyperdimension 6y ago
  I'm a little surprised Netflix worked for you over HE.net's tunnel broker. I got treated as though I was using a VPN when I used it (US.)
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Maybe they have one endpoint that is reachable via ipv4 only and see that, while you have a HE.net IPv6 address, you still have a proper US telco giving you an IPv4 address?
- mmmqaq 6y ago
  In China, all ISPs for individuals are providing a router with IPv6 support on by default. All major APPs are forced to provide IPv6 support by the government push. Let's see how the transition in China will go. https://blog.apnic.net/2019/06/06/100-by-2025-china-getting-serious-about-ipv6/ https://blog.apnic.net/2019/06/06/100-by-2025-china-getting-...
everdrive 6y ago
My residential connection at home. "Switch to another provider" is not an option, since there are no other broadband providers near me. (and no DSL does not count as broadband)
saddlerustle 6y ago
Google Cloud does not support IPv6. There's no way to make connections to IPv6 hosts from a GCE vm.
umanwizard 6y ago
My home internet (Verizon FiOS) is still IPv4-only.
varenc 6y ago
Plenty of networking gear has trouble with it. IPv4 is just so easy to keep using and IPv6 support is often treated as an after thought. I had troubles with my Ubiquiti gateway using IPv6 and the forums often recommend just disabling it. Some features don't work correctly with IPv6 even now. Google/Nest wifi did a good job of just making IPv6 enabled by default for all consumers.
- ArchOversight 6y ago
  Google/Nest Wifi took a LONG time to get IPv6 support and to support it well.
laurent92 6y ago
apt-get. More precisely, the repos; When you activate IPv6 on Debian, then apt-get (the package manager) is extremely slow. This is because it first tries to reach a repo in IPv6, then after 30s falls back to IPv4. If you disable IPv4, it is lightening fast. Many services behave the same way, to the point that computers are generally faster on IPv4. Maybe it changed recently but it wasn’t the case for the last 10 years and I’ve quit trying, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to configure the Debian system far from the defaults. Edit: Maybe it is my ISPs who don’t support IPv6, which makes it hard to improve because the problem is invisible for, for example, Debian developers who work on IPv6 support.
- zaphoyd 6y ago
  Not sure about Debian, but all of the Ubuntu apt / package manager servers work quickly and reliably over IPv6 and have for some time.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  You can modify /etc/gai.conf to prefer IPv4 over IPv6; cf. gai.conf(5).
- eznzt 6y ago
  Which is why the first commands to run on a Linux installation are sudo sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6=1 sudo sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.default.disable_ipv6=1
  - samoa42 6y ago
    note that this is a runtime config. drop it somewhere in /etc/sysctl.d/ to make it permanent.
nikanj 6y ago
A depressingly large number of end-user internet connections come without ipv6, so if you're serving a website you need to be reachable via ipv4

Like 60-70% of all internet users: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption&tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...

Spivak 6y ago
This is a little misleading. This just measures users that are using IPv6 not users that would be able to use IPv6 if IPv4 stopped working. My local network and ISP are perfectly capable of using IPv6 but you have to call them to switch.
jcranmer 6y ago
Zoom into 2020, and you can clearly see when the lockdowns due to the pandemic start on that chart. The other interesting artifact is that it looks like IPv6 network rollout tends to almost exclusively happen in the April-July timeframe.

gertrunde 6y ago

Imagine that you have two ways of addressing your system. 1) Allows you to access almost 100% of your potential customers. 2) Allows you to access around 35% of your potential customers. Which one would you choose any why?

ArchOversight 6y ago
Both. Especially if that one with 35% of my customers provides me with lower latency, higher throughput and costs me less in CPU time/power to run my traffic across. The rest of the people I need to eat the cost for...
- mypalmike 6y ago
  Are you implying that using IPv6 lowers latency and increases throughput?
  - ArchOversight 6y ago
    Yes. https://www.retevia.net/fast/ https://www.retevia.net/fast/ The throughput issue may be because the IPv6 network is less utilized and or uses more efficient routing, but the latency is less. Here's Facebook's information on how IPv6 is faster: https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/ https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time... > We’ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15 percent faster over IPv6.
    - samoa42 6y ago
      the wording "can be faster" tells that this is the upper bound. ie. it is generally about the same, while it can be 15% faster or slower than the ip4 average. sample sizes are most likely somewhat different aswell .

haskaalo 6y ago

I believe most home ISP doesn't support IPv6 in many countries like Canada. Thus, resulting in IPv4 still being considered as "default". Also, with the increasing numbers of devices connected everyday, we're running out of IPv4. Think of the demand vs supply curve (demand high, supply low, result = higher price/ip) You can check IPv6 adoption in each country here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

bluGill 6y ago
Most is incorrect. Many big ISPs support IPv6. The IPv6 charts notice more IPv4 when people are working, and IPv6 while people at home (nights and weekends) because so many ISPs do support IPv6 and it just works. The big cable ISPs and the big cell phone (not sure if all, but some at least) support IPv6 to everyone and have been doing it for a long time because it just works (they had to do some effort early to get it to work).
- jaywalk 6y ago
  The cellular carriers are now doing CGNAT for IPv4, so supporting IPv6 means less traffic has to run through their CGNAT gear.
  - usr1106 6y ago
    I have noticed that when looking at the internal IPv4 address of my phone. What's the technical difference between Carrier Grade NAT and "traditional" NAT? /Not working in networking
    - bluGill 6y ago
      From what I can tell it is just the power. Traditional/home NAT runs on low powered computers. CNAT is the same thing, but with very powerful computers with a lot of memory so they can handle thousands of users (possibly each with gigabit internet connections!) behind one IP address.

projektfu 6y ago

Residential and SOHO gateways usually don’t offer much configuration for ipv6, and it’s generally an afterthought in their interfaces, even if it is increasingly being used.

mrweasel 6y ago

I would guess around half. We've bought brand new Cisco gear, which for some unholy reason didn't support IPv6. We've worked with vendors who told us that they've been supporting IPv6 for years, a decade even, but try to enable it, and you'll see that no one actually ever used it, and it doesn't work. Amazon could perhaps do with less IPv4 addresses, if people did misuse them. I work with a client who have a public IPv4 address associated with every single EC2 instance they have, despite only 5% of them have public facing services. They just got in the habit of assigning a public IP I guess.

luhn 6y ago
I do the same thing. Without IPv4 for an EC2 instance, your options are: - No outbound internet access - IPv6-only outbound internet access - NAT, for an addition monthly and per-GB fee Given you can assign a public IPv4 address at no additional cost and have everything just work, there's little reason not to have one.
- outworlder 6y ago
  So you have everything in a public subnet? That's asking for trouble. Sure, if you have a tiny deployment you may not care (and the NAT fees may be a significant portion of that). At some point, the NAT fees are noise - it amounts to ~ a dollar per day in us-west-2. Data processing charge is $0.045 It becomes way more valuable to ensure IT security, regulators and auditors that no, no inbound connections are allowed no matter what anyone does with the security group rules. Also note that the AWS managed NAT gateways haven't been there forever. The option, before they were available, was to use one or more of your instances to NAT traffic. That's still available and could be an alternative, while reducing your potential footprint.
ArchOversight 6y ago
Why shouldn't someone assign a public IPv4 address to a server? The whole NAT game is just that, a game. Also, NAT gateways cost money in AWS, so much that it is a running joke: https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1294047698560012289 https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1294047698560012289 https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1293366642567651330 https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1293366642567651330 NAT doesn't add any additional security, Security Groups are fantastic at allowing you define your ingress/egress between instances and protecting them from harm. All my instances get an IPv4 address an an IPv6 address by default so that there is parity. The fact that the IPv4 address still goes through some sort of NAT on AWS's side (1:1 but still NAT) kind of bothers me.

Isthatablackgsd 6y ago

ISP is one of them around the world, some of them don't have the support for IPv6 yet. Devices, you will be surprised a lot of devices that does not have support for IPv6.

josephg 6y ago

My residential broadband connection here in Australia still doesn’t support ipv6. I email them about it every year or so to keep it on their radar, but “they have no plans at this time to support ipv6”. So long as the internet keeps working, my isp won’t care. I set up a HE ipv6 bridge, but it adds noticeable latency whenever it’s used, for sites like YouTube and Netflix. I wonder if we need regulation to force the transition. The move to v6 might never complete otherwise.

hyperdimension 6y ago
I'm a little surprised Netflix worked for you over HE.net's tunnel broker. I got treated as though I was using a VPN when I used it (US.)
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Maybe they have one endpoint that is reachable via ipv4 only and see that, while you have a HE.net IPv6 address, you still have a proper US telco giving you an IPv4 address?
mmmqaq 6y ago
In China, all ISPs for individuals are providing a router with IPv6 support on by default. All major APPs are forced to provide IPv6 support by the government push. Let's see how the transition in China will go. https://blog.apnic.net/2019/06/06/100-by-2025-china-getting-serious-about-ipv6/ https://blog.apnic.net/2019/06/06/100-by-2025-china-getting-...

everdrive 6y ago

My residential connection at home. "Switch to another provider" is not an option, since there are no other broadband providers near me. (and no DSL does not count as broadband)

saddlerustle 6y ago

Google Cloud does not support IPv6. There's no way to make connections to IPv6 hosts from a GCE vm.

umanwizard 6y ago

My home internet (Verizon FiOS) is still IPv4-only.

varenc 6y ago

Plenty of networking gear has trouble with it. IPv4 is just so easy to keep using and IPv6 support is often treated as an after thought. I had troubles with my Ubiquiti gateway using IPv6 and the forums often recommend just disabling it. Some features don't work correctly with IPv6 even now. Google/Nest wifi did a good job of just making IPv6 enabled by default for all consumers.

ArchOversight 6y ago
Google/Nest Wifi took a LONG time to get IPv6 support and to support it well.

laurent92 6y ago

apt-get. More precisely, the repos; When you activate IPv6 on Debian, then apt-get (the package manager) is extremely slow. This is because it first tries to reach a repo in IPv6, then after 30s falls back to IPv4. If you disable IPv4, it is lightening fast. Many services behave the same way, to the point that computers are generally faster on IPv4. Maybe it changed recently but it wasn’t the case for the last 10 years and I’ve quit trying, and I’m not knowledgeable enough to configure the Debian system far from the defaults. Edit: Maybe it is my ISPs who don’t support IPv6, which makes it hard to improve because the problem is invisible for, for example, Debian developers who work on IPv6 support.

zaphoyd 6y ago
Not sure about Debian, but all of the Ubuntu apt / package manager servers work quickly and reliably over IPv6 and have for some time.
jlgaddis 6y ago
You can modify /etc/gai.conf to prefer IPv4 over IPv6; cf. gai.conf(5).
eznzt 6y ago
Which is why the first commands to run on a Linux installation are sudo sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.all.disable_ipv6=1 sudo sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.default.disable_ipv6=1
- samoa42 6y ago
  note that this is a runtime config. drop it somewhere in /etc/sysctl.d/ to make it permanent.

nikanj 6y ago

A depressingly large number of end-user internet connections come without ipv6, so if you're serving a website you need to be reachable via ipv4