17 ms·

India is leading IPv6 migration with 61.67% adoption

276 points by quaintdev 5y ago

faraaz98 5y ago
With the amount of people coming online, India also probably needs it the most
- newsclues 5y ago
  How does China manage?
  - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
    Layers upon layers of NAT from what I hear.
  - patchtopic 5y ago
    they are trying to catch up: https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3143180/china-hatches-plan-lead-adoption-new-internet-protocol-beijing-eyes https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3143180/china-hatch...
- zahrc 5y ago
  Exactly. And as a developing country, they (hard guess) do not have the widespread pre-existing infrastructure like developed countries; and therefore can easier to adopt to it. Another factor - mobile has a way greater market share in India, than mobile has in Europe. It’s easier to enforce IPv6 as a mobile carrier (https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mob...)
- thrower123 5y ago
  They don't have giant DARPA allocated IP4 blocks handed out for free to companies and universities in the early days of the internet either.
tumblewit 5y ago
I think the most obvious factor here is the mobile networks. I have two fiber ISPs and neither have IPv6 support for consumers.
- tsjq 5y ago
  mainly Jio :)
quaintdev 5y ago
It's crazy that major web sites still do not support IPv6. https://www.amazon.in https://www.amazon.in https://www.paytm.com https://www.paytm.com https://twitter.com https://twitter.com https://www.flipkart.com https://www.flipkart.com https://www.hotstar.com https://www.hotstar.com https://www.primevideo.com https://www.primevideo.com https://news.ycombinator.com https://news.ycombinator.com https://www.reddit.com https://www.reddit.com Edit: Removed google.co.in, the website[1] reported it that it does not support ipv6, Now I tried again and google is in green. [1] https://ipv6-test.com/validate.php https://ipv6-test.com/validate.php
- judge2020 5y ago
  https://dns.google/query?name=www.google.co.in&rr_type=AAAA&ecs= https://dns.google/query?name=www.google.co.in&rr_type=AAAA&...
- distalx 5y ago
  ELI5: Why does IPv6 adoption matter? What would happen if these sites don't migrate to IPv6?
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    We eventually run out of IPv4 addresses and have to switch anyway
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      That doesn't work as an explanation. NAT was developed. CGNAT was developed. HTTP Host differentiation was developed. SNI was developed. STUN was developed. TURN was developed. The main problem with IPv4 to IPv6 migration is the, frankly, overzealous utopia that "they will migrate anyway". Worse, it's very different that doesn't allow for a simple upgrade option of "IPv4, but longer addresses" because IPv6 is designed to be fundamentally different. Which is more insulting considering that BGP was seamlessly upgraded from 65536 ASes to more than a million because they only changed the bits in an AS and nothing more. As a router developer, you only need to do the relatively minute changes of extended ASes than the (relative) mess that is IPv6.
aloknnikhil 5y ago
This seems to be particularly because of Reliance Jio (the largest Mobile network in India?) https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harnessing-the-power-of-IPv6.pdf https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harness... The adoption timeline matches Google's stats here
- tumblewit 5y ago
  I believe so. They use a dual stack model and last I checked Airtel doesn’t support IPv6 yet and neither does Vi which leaves Jio to be the only ones contributing to the stats.
  - quaintdev 5y ago
    Airtel supports dual stack as well. I have been using Airtel Internet with IPv6 for a year or two now.
    - tumblewit 5y ago
      I tried on my iPhone SE (2020) 3 months ago and I could not get iPv6. Could be location specific. Because I specifically tested for iPv6 support.
  - gopkarthik 5y ago
    Airtel does dual stack model. I've been using it for about 2 years now.
    - amjd 5y ago
      Airtel doesn't seem to support IPv6 for their broadband services yet, at least in my state. Have you experienced this with broadband or mobile services?
      - asaddhamani 5y ago
        Airtel mobile supports IPv6
moonchrome 5y ago
IPv6 is a perfect example of where a legislator can make a positive market impact. I like market principles, but relying on market alone for this just leads to local optimum (squeezing every last drop from IPv4 with various hacks). Just mandate that every ISP must provide IPv6 for new contracts within a year and then for all existing contract within two - or whatever reasonable timeline - and be done with it.
- techsupporter 5y ago
  Didn't the US government require that all cloud services provided to and by the government be done over IPv4 and IPv6 some time ago? In opening another tab to answer my own question, I see that they've broadened the scope and that the US government networks should be IPv6-only, with some caveats I'm sure, by 2023: https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2021/03/how-make-progress-implementing-ipv6-government-perfcon https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2021/03/how-make-progres...
  - ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
    The cynic in me wants to know if all government cloud services support IPv6 as mandated, on paper only or in practice? :) The linked article isn’t as ambitious as to claim IPv6-only government networks by 2023, only that new systems should support IPv6 by 2023. I’d also be very surprised if the government was able to hit any of the IPv6-only targets put forth in the article.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box. To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to be a real need for IPv6 and/or a revenue driver. Very large ISPs and mobile carriers need IPv6 because they are simply running out of IPv4 addresses, even non-public IPv4 addresses! This still does not mean they can go IPv6-only, they still need IPv4 and translation technologies to reach the Internet. The core problem of IPv6 adoption is that insensitive do not align across the whole Internet ecosystem.
sgt 5y ago
An idea (perhaps silly one) that I had to boost IPv6 adoption - remember the old web 1.0? Interesting web sites and stuff you don't easily find today? Let's create a unique experience that's only accessible on sites that are IPv6 only. Not to exclude people - even with IPv4 only from your ISP you can tunnel in. Ideas?
- nsgi 5y ago
  Do you mean restricting new web features to IPv6 sites? Or something else?
- bradfitz 5y ago
  Not an entirely new idea... https://itwire.com/business-technology/good-news-bad-news-and-free-porn-on-ipv6.html https://itwire.com/business-technology/good-news-bad-news-an... > And the free porn? According to Labovitz, it's just one incentive being offered to promote IPV6 "...IPv6 proponents offer free high quality IPv6 porn (the porn-free, IPV4 home page is https://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ https://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ )
- kaliszad 5y ago
  There are some experiments https://www.doesnotwork.eu/ https://www.doesnotwork.eu/ (here are more details: https://ondřej.caletka.cz/dl/slidy/20180824-SNT2018-E_mail_services_on_IPv6_only.pdf https://xn--ondej-kcb.caletka.cz/dl/slidy/20180824-SNT2018-E...) It is good for testing stuff.
blueblisters 5y ago
OT: does IPv6 make it easier/harder for websites to track you?
- mrweasel 5y ago
  NAT is no longer a thing, all devices just have a globally unique IP. So your IP allow is a pretty strong indicator, it seems like that alone would make tracking easier. There’s nothing in IPv6 to prevent tracking or offer more anonymity.
  - rk06 5y ago
    NAT can be used in conjunction with IPv6 for security purposes. It is still a thing
    - Dagger2 5y ago
      It was never a thing. NAT isn't security.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      How do you think NAT gives you security?
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
        Without active measures to allow it, you can't reach ports on a machine behind NAT. If I accidentally run an SSH server where user 'root' and an empty password gives you root access, you still won't be able to get in. Accidentally configuring port forwarding is a lot harder than accidentally disabling an on-host firewall.
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        You can just as easily run a firewall as a NAT, in fact most home routers support both. And, just like NAT, by default they don't allow any connections from the outside.
ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
The interesting question is, does India have enough critical mass to actually launch local IPv6-only services? A large carrier could even use IPv6 as a competitive moat by offering/sponsoring/investing in popular local IPv6-only services. Competitor’s customers would be locked out because they don’t have IPv6, not because they were blocked. Kinda hard for competitors to cry foul to the regulator, since the only reason their customers can’t reach the service is that they themselves haven’t been keeping up with the times.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
noasaservice 5y ago
The whole issue surrounding IPv4 and 6 is a racism issue. Why does India and China both have high implementations of IPv6? Because most of Europe and the US have all the big blocks, and either refuse to sell them or are actively hoarding them (like the real estate crisis right now). Except... Racism? Countries that US, UK, etc have invaded and camped on for decades or centuries are only beginning to recover. So, those countries got on the internet much later. And because of orgs grabbing every block they can, it leaves little to none for the countries who were late to the internet game. Is there a good reason why the DOD is hoarding 5% of ALL IP4's? Or had Ford (vehicle company) pivoted to tech for their 16 million IP's? Why does Apple hold on to theirs - what are they doing with it? The "first world" owns the primary means of the internet, which leaves the "third world" with scraps. And in this case, scraps are the few IP4's they can get, and have to make do with IP6, with its 2^128 IP space. But, I think the worst insult, is all the 'first world' services as posted by quaintdev (google.co.in amazon.in paytm.com twitter.com flipkart.com hotstar.com primevideo.com) that plainly aren't accessable without using the 'first world internet' aka IPv4. Theres only enough of these coincidences that line up, before I believe that there's something more sinister going on. And keeping 'those people' away from the IPv4 euro-centric network is I believe the primary intent... AWS/GCE/Azure here in the States has never had an IPv4 allocation problem with machines I build. Hmm.
ajaimk 5y ago
The main reason for this is Jio, a new mobile phone network that began in 2010s. They built a 4G only network (not 5G) and used IPv6 from day 1 for their phones. Reference: https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harnessing-the-power-of-IPv6.pdf https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harness...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
KoftaBob 5y ago
Any particular reason China's adoption rate is so low?
- khuey 5y ago
  They use massive amounts of NAT instead AIUI.
- Sayrus 5y ago
  A few years ago, IPv6 in China was reserved to universities and it bypassed the golden shield (at least censorship, added packet loss on long-running connections, added latency, ...). 2.28% is already impressive if the situation is still the same nowadays.
hannob 5y ago
If anything this message says something about the abysmal state of IPv6. Ultimately the goal of IPv6 is to end IP scarcity. But it can only do this if close to 100% of users and services use IPv6. Seeing it like that it doesn't really matter much if IPv6 adoption is 30% or 60% or 90%. In none of these situations would an ISP connect its customers via IPv6 only or would anyone provide any service that requires IPv6. I really wonder how IPv6 should ever become mainstream without any deployment strategy. "Let's tell everyone that IPv6 is nice and we need it due to lack of v4 addresses" obviously hasn't worked for more than 20 years.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throw0101a 5y ago
  AFAICT, IPv4 addresses are currently going for about US$ 40/IP. At some point if ISPs run out of addresses and need more, it may be cheaper to simply implement IPv6 with a one-time, up-front project than having to go back to the well/market for more IPv4 blocks. Similarly for hosting providers: as IPv4 addresses get more expensive, they may have to start charging their customers more and more for each one, at which point the customers may simply go only-/mostly-IPv6.
  - hannob 5y ago
    That's not how it works. A single ISP can't do anything about the situation. They can provide IPv6 to their customers, but they still need IPv4 so their customers so they have a usable internet connection. It doesn't help them at all. Which is part of the problem here: As long as IPv6 is not implemented by everybody the people who do implement it have no advantage.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      An ISP probably already has IPv4 addresses, but needs more addresses for basic connectivity. They can become IPv6-only and then use their IPv4 block/s for CGNAT. The money would go to either buying more addresses or more CGNAT. This is how a lot of mobile/cell telcos already work. A T-Mobile presentation from 2018 (PDF): * https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/20180625_Lagerholm_T-Mobile_S_Journey_To_v1.pdf https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/...
crims0n 5y ago
Ah yes… the IPv6 migration. Been hearing about this for two decades now. The reason it isn’t ubiquitous in 2021 is because there are fundamental issues with the protocol, not least of which is incompatibility with what the entire rest of the world is current running. If we are ever going to get the world on the same protocol, we need something new.
- onefortree 5y ago
  Do you mind describing what those issues are? Or linking some reading about it?
  - commandersaki 5y ago
    Originally published in 2002 (inspired from djb's proposal on AutoIPv6): https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
- vetinari 5y ago
  Nah, as protocol the IPv6 is fine. What is not fine is the real-world implementations. ISPs that give you a /64 subnet? ISPs that insist, that with IPv6 you must use their CPE as a router, where you have almost zero control? ISPs that give you /56, but prefix delegation on the router they force on you is broken? There's so much brokenness, that even as a IPv6 fan, I keep my IPv4 addresses. And if it means DS-Lite or IPv4, then IPv4 is it.
novok 5y ago
How google would start a wave of ip6 migration: give a search penalty for being ip4 only.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  How would this benefit Google?
  - miyuru 5y ago
    Did the https migration benefit Google? https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-r...
    - 2fastpost 5y ago
      Https prevents ad injection.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      If you are using a public wifi and still on http, the wifi provider can see your passwords.
  - novok 5y ago
    Could make future software plans more viable if the world is majority of the world is ipv6
    - 2fastpost 5y ago
      This view I could endorse.
  - pixl97 5y ago
    Less individual users behind NAT so they can track them better?
    - 2fastpost 5y ago
IgorPartola 5y ago
And here I am with a brand new Frontier fiber install and not only do they not offer IPv6, not only do they not allow me access to their 6rd relays because those are “legacy” from AT&T, but they also fucking block protocol 41 so I can’t even use a tunnel broker.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> India is leading IPv6 migration with 61.67% adoption This data doesn't show that at all. It's based on traffic to Google. According to this, IPv6 adoption in China is just over 2%. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
- riobard 5y ago
  True. All three major mobile carriers in mainland China have deployed Dual Stack. And the government is pushing for IPv6-only stack by 2030, with pilot starting as early as 2025.
pragnesh 5y ago
jio effect
mritzmann 5y ago
Imagine if Google penalised websites that did not have IPV6. Then it would suddenly happen very quickly.
- Havoc 5y ago
  Not a half bad idea. Helped with ssl
- 2fastpost 5y ago
  As stated in the other thread suggesting the same, what’s in it for Google?
john_moscow 5y ago
The problem with IPv6 is the yield curve. Adopting IPv6 currently yields you some good PR, extra maintenance costs from troubleshooting minor compatibility problems right now, and a great advantage of not losing IPv6-only customers at some distant time in the future, when IPv6-only hosts become a thing. So, from a business perspective, the optimal strategy is to delay the transition (and the ongoing maintenance costs) until IPv6-only customers become a quantifiable number (e.g. you could say that in 5 years about 5-10% of your target audience would not have IPv4, so switching to IPv6 would increase your sales by X%). You can't blame businesses for doing that. You don't play by these rules, you end up one of those companies blogging how they are forced to shut down despite having a marvelous and very sophisticated product. That said, you can change it very easily. Just offer IPv6 traffic at a slightly lower rate than IPv4. So every IPv6 packet costs you less than the IPv4 one. For unlimited connections, offer some rebate based on the fraction of IPv6 packets, or something. This will immediately put the incentives in the right places and the switch will happen at exponential rate.
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  >That said, you can change it very easily. Just offer IPv6 traffic at a slightly lower rate than IPv4. How many cents per month will make you or anybody care? ISPs don’t even pay for the majority of their bandwidth, they get it for free via settlement free peering. Where’s the rebate going to come from that? On the fraction of bandwidth ISPs pay for, the wholesale rates are less than 5 cents per Mbps. On average a subscriber uses a few Mbps on average. Would 15 cents per month really motivate you to go all in on IPv6? On average bandwidth costs for an ISP are single digit percentages or less of all costs. Even if their wholesalers would fully discount all their IPv6 traffic (why would they do that?!) there’s only so much there to work with.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xony 5y ago
fake news
nikkinana 5y ago
Just do the needful.

276 points by quaintdev 5y ago

faraaz98 5y ago

With the amount of people coming online, India also probably needs it the most

newsclues 5y ago
How does China manage?
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  Layers upon layers of NAT from what I hear.
- patchtopic 5y ago
  they are trying to catch up: https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3143180/china-hatches-plan-lead-adoption-new-internet-protocol-beijing-eyes https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3143180/china-hatch...
zahrc 5y ago
Exactly. And as a developing country, they (hard guess) do not have the widespread pre-existing infrastructure like developed countries; and therefore can easier to adopt to it. Another factor - mobile has a way greater market share in India, than mobile has in Europe. It’s easier to enforce IPv6 as a mobile carrier (https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mobile-tablet/europe https://gs.statcounter.com/platform-market-share/desktop-mob...)
thrower123 5y ago
They don't have giant DARPA allocated IP4 blocks handed out for free to companies and universities in the early days of the internet either.

tumblewit 5y ago

I think the most obvious factor here is the mobile networks. I have two fiber ISPs and neither have IPv6 support for consumers.

tsjq 5y ago
mainly Jio :)

quaintdev 5y ago

It's crazy that major web sites still do not support IPv6. https://www.amazon.in https://www.amazon.in https://www.paytm.com https://www.paytm.com https://twitter.com https://twitter.com https://www.flipkart.com https://www.flipkart.com https://www.hotstar.com https://www.hotstar.com https://www.primevideo.com https://www.primevideo.com https://news.ycombinator.com https://news.ycombinator.com https://www.reddit.com https://www.reddit.com Edit: Removed google.co.in, the website[1] reported it that it does not support ipv6, Now I tried again and google is in green. [1] https://ipv6-test.com/validate.php https://ipv6-test.com/validate.php

judge2020 5y ago
https://dns.google/query?name=www.google.co.in&rr_type=AAAA&ecs= https://dns.google/query?name=www.google.co.in&rr_type=AAAA&...
distalx 5y ago
ELI5: Why does IPv6 adoption matter? What would happen if these sites don't migrate to IPv6?
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  We eventually run out of IPv4 addresses and have to switch anyway
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    That doesn't work as an explanation. NAT was developed. CGNAT was developed. HTTP Host differentiation was developed. SNI was developed. STUN was developed. TURN was developed. The main problem with IPv4 to IPv6 migration is the, frankly, overzealous utopia that "they will migrate anyway". Worse, it's very different that doesn't allow for a simple upgrade option of "IPv4, but longer addresses" because IPv6 is designed to be fundamentally different. Which is more insulting considering that BGP was seamlessly upgraded from 65536 ASes to more than a million because they only changed the bits in an AS and nothing more. As a router developer, you only need to do the relatively minute changes of extended ASes than the (relative) mess that is IPv6.

aloknnikhil 5y ago

This seems to be particularly because of Reliance Jio (the largest Mobile network in India?) https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harnessing-the-power-of-IPv6.pdf https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harness... The adoption timeline matches Google's stats here

tumblewit 5y ago
I believe so. They use a dual stack model and last I checked Airtel doesn’t support IPv6 yet and neither does Vi which leaves Jio to be the only ones contributing to the stats.
- quaintdev 5y ago
  Airtel supports dual stack as well. I have been using Airtel Internet with IPv6 for a year or two now.
  - tumblewit 5y ago
    I tried on my iPhone SE (2020) 3 months ago and I could not get iPv6. Could be location specific. Because I specifically tested for iPv6 support.
- gopkarthik 5y ago
  Airtel does dual stack model. I've been using it for about 2 years now.
  - amjd 5y ago
    Airtel doesn't seem to support IPv6 for their broadband services yet, at least in my state. Have you experienced this with broadband or mobile services?
    - asaddhamani 5y ago
      Airtel mobile supports IPv6

moonchrome 5y ago

IPv6 is a perfect example of where a legislator can make a positive market impact. I like market principles, but relying on market alone for this just leads to local optimum (squeezing every last drop from IPv4 with various hacks). Just mandate that every ISP must provide IPv6 for new contracts within a year and then for all existing contract within two - or whatever reasonable timeline - and be done with it.

techsupporter 5y ago
Didn't the US government require that all cloud services provided to and by the government be done over IPv4 and IPv6 some time ago? In opening another tab to answer my own question, I see that they've broadened the scope and that the US government networks should be IPv6-only, with some caveats I'm sure, by 2023: https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2021/03/how-make-progress-implementing-ipv6-government-perfcon https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2021/03/how-make-progres...
- ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
  The cynic in me wants to know if all government cloud services support IPv6 as mandated, on paper only or in practice? :) The linked article isn’t as ambitious as to claim IPv6-only government networks by 2023, only that new systems should support IPv6 by 2023. I’d also be very surprised if the government was able to hit any of the IPv6-only targets put forth in the article.
ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
Forcing IPv6 upon ISPs by decree will only make them do the very least possible in order to be able to check a box. To truly drive IPv6 adoption there has to be a real need for IPv6 and/or a revenue driver. Very large ISPs and mobile carriers need IPv6 because they are simply running out of IPv4 addresses, even non-public IPv4 addresses! This still does not mean they can go IPv6-only, they still need IPv4 and translation technologies to reach the Internet. The core problem of IPv6 adoption is that insensitive do not align across the whole Internet ecosystem.

sgt 5y ago

An idea (perhaps silly one) that I had to boost IPv6 adoption - remember the old web 1.0? Interesting web sites and stuff you don't easily find today? Let's create a unique experience that's only accessible on sites that are IPv6 only. Not to exclude people - even with IPv4 only from your ISP you can tunnel in. Ideas?

nsgi 5y ago
Do you mean restricting new web features to IPv6 sites? Or something else?
bradfitz 5y ago
Not an entirely new idea... https://itwire.com/business-technology/good-news-bad-news-and-free-porn-on-ipv6.html https://itwire.com/business-technology/good-news-bad-news-an... > And the free porn? According to Labovitz, it's just one incentive being offered to promote IPV6 "...IPv6 proponents offer free high quality IPv6 porn (the porn-free, IPV4 home page is https://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ https://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ )
kaliszad 5y ago
There are some experiments https://www.doesnotwork.eu/ https://www.doesnotwork.eu/ (here are more details: https://ondřej.caletka.cz/dl/slidy/20180824-SNT2018-E_mail_services_on_IPv6_only.pdf https://xn--ondej-kcb.caletka.cz/dl/slidy/20180824-SNT2018-E...) It is good for testing stuff.

blueblisters 5y ago

OT: does IPv6 make it easier/harder for websites to track you?

mrweasel 5y ago
NAT is no longer a thing, all devices just have a globally unique IP. So your IP allow is a pretty strong indicator, it seems like that alone would make tracking easier. There’s nothing in IPv6 to prevent tracking or offer more anonymity.
- rk06 5y ago
  NAT can be used in conjunction with IPv6 for security purposes. It is still a thing
  - Dagger2 5y ago
    It was never a thing. NAT isn't security.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    How do you think NAT gives you security?
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
      Without active measures to allow it, you can't reach ports on a machine behind NAT. If I accidentally run an SSH server where user 'root' and an empty password gives you root access, you still won't be able to get in. Accidentally configuring port forwarding is a lot harder than accidentally disabling an on-host firewall.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        You can just as easily run a firewall as a NAT, in fact most home routers support both. And, just like NAT, by default they don't allow any connections from the outside.

ipv6_or_nat 5y ago

The interesting question is, does India have enough critical mass to actually launch local IPv6-only services? A large carrier could even use IPv6 as a competitive moat by offering/sponsoring/investing in popular local IPv6-only services. Competitor’s customers would be locked out because they don’t have IPv6, not because they were blocked. Kinda hard for competitors to cry foul to the regulator, since the only reason their customers can’t reach the service is that they themselves haven’t been keeping up with the times.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

noasaservice 5y ago

The whole issue surrounding IPv4 and 6 is a racism issue. Why does India and China both have high implementations of IPv6? Because most of Europe and the US have all the big blocks, and either refuse to sell them or are actively hoarding them (like the real estate crisis right now). Except... Racism? Countries that US, UK, etc have invaded and camped on for decades or centuries are only beginning to recover. So, those countries got on the internet much later. And because of orgs grabbing every block they can, it leaves little to none for the countries who were late to the internet game. Is there a good reason why the DOD is hoarding 5% of ALL IP4's? Or had Ford (vehicle company) pivoted to tech for their 16 million IP's? Why does Apple hold on to theirs - what are they doing with it? The "first world" owns the primary means of the internet, which leaves the "third world" with scraps. And in this case, scraps are the few IP4's they can get, and have to make do with IP6, with its 2^128 IP space. But, I think the worst insult, is all the 'first world' services as posted by quaintdev (google.co.in amazon.in paytm.com twitter.com flipkart.com hotstar.com primevideo.com) that plainly aren't accessable without using the 'first world internet' aka IPv4. Theres only enough of these coincidences that line up, before I believe that there's something more sinister going on. And keeping 'those people' away from the IPv4 euro-centric network is I believe the primary intent... AWS/GCE/Azure here in the States has never had an IPv4 allocation problem with machines I build. Hmm.

ajaimk 5y ago

The main reason for this is Jio, a new mobile phone network that began in 2010s. They built a 4G only network (not 5G) and used IPv6 from day 1 for their phones. Reference: https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harnessing-the-power-of-IPv6.pdf https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Harness...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

KoftaBob 5y ago

Any particular reason China's adoption rate is so low?

khuey 5y ago
They use massive amounts of NAT instead AIUI.
Sayrus 5y ago
A few years ago, IPv6 in China was reserved to universities and it bypassed the golden shield (at least censorship, added packet loss on long-running connections, added latency, ...). 2.28% is already impressive if the situation is still the same nowadays.

hannob 5y ago

If anything this message says something about the abysmal state of IPv6. Ultimately the goal of IPv6 is to end IP scarcity. But it can only do this if close to 100% of users and services use IPv6. Seeing it like that it doesn't really matter much if IPv6 adoption is 30% or 60% or 90%. In none of these situations would an ISP connect its customers via IPv6 only or would anyone provide any service that requires IPv6. I really wonder how IPv6 should ever become mainstream without any deployment strategy. "Let's tell everyone that IPv6 is nice and we need it due to lack of v4 addresses" obviously hasn't worked for more than 20 years.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 5y ago
AFAICT, IPv4 addresses are currently going for about US$ 40/IP. At some point if ISPs run out of addresses and need more, it may be cheaper to simply implement IPv6 with a one-time, up-front project than having to go back to the well/market for more IPv4 blocks. Similarly for hosting providers: as IPv4 addresses get more expensive, they may have to start charging their customers more and more for each one, at which point the customers may simply go only-/mostly-IPv6.
- hannob 5y ago
  That's not how it works. A single ISP can't do anything about the situation. They can provide IPv6 to their customers, but they still need IPv4 so their customers so they have a usable internet connection. It doesn't help them at all. Which is part of the problem here: As long as IPv6 is not implemented by everybody the people who do implement it have no advantage.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    An ISP probably already has IPv4 addresses, but needs more addresses for basic connectivity. They can become IPv6-only and then use their IPv4 block/s for CGNAT. The money would go to either buying more addresses or more CGNAT. This is how a lot of mobile/cell telcos already work. A T-Mobile presentation from 2018 (PDF): * https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/20180625_Lagerholm_T-Mobile_S_Journey_To_v1.pdf https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG73/1645/...

crims0n 5y ago

Ah yes… the IPv6 migration. Been hearing about this for two decades now. The reason it isn’t ubiquitous in 2021 is because there are fundamental issues with the protocol, not least of which is incompatibility with what the entire rest of the world is current running. If we are ever going to get the world on the same protocol, we need something new.

onefortree 5y ago
Do you mind describing what those issues are? Or linking some reading about it?
- commandersaki 5y ago
  Originally published in 2002 (inspired from djb's proposal on AutoIPv6): https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
vetinari 5y ago
Nah, as protocol the IPv6 is fine. What is not fine is the real-world implementations. ISPs that give you a /64 subnet? ISPs that insist, that with IPv6 you must use their CPE as a router, where you have almost zero control? ISPs that give you /56, but prefix delegation on the router they force on you is broken? There's so much brokenness, that even as a IPv6 fan, I keep my IPv4 addresses. And if it means DS-Lite or IPv4, then IPv4 is it.

novok 5y ago

How google would start a wave of ip6 migration: give a search penalty for being ip4 only.

ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
How would this benefit Google?
- miyuru 5y ago
  Did the https migration benefit Google? https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-r...
  - 2fastpost 5y ago
    Https prevents ad injection.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    If you are using a public wifi and still on http, the wifi provider can see your passwords.
- novok 5y ago
  Could make future software plans more viable if the world is majority of the world is ipv6
  - 2fastpost 5y ago
    This view I could endorse.
- pixl97 5y ago
  Less individual users behind NAT so they can track them better?
  - 2fastpost 5y ago

IgorPartola 5y ago

And here I am with a brand new Frontier fiber install and not only do they not offer IPv6, not only do they not allow me access to their 6rd relays because those are “legacy” from AT&T, but they also fucking block protocol 41 so I can’t even use a tunnel broker.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> India is leading IPv6 migration with 61.67% adoption This data doesn't show that at all. It's based on traffic to Google. According to this, IPv6 adoption in China is just over 2%. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

riobard 5y ago
True. All three major mobile carriers in mainland China have deployed Dual Stack. And the government is pushing for IPv6-only stack by 2030, with pilot starting as early as 2025.

pragnesh 5y ago

jio effect

mritzmann 5y ago

Imagine if Google penalised websites that did not have IPV6. Then it would suddenly happen very quickly.

Havoc 5y ago
Not a half bad idea. Helped with ssl
2fastpost 5y ago
As stated in the other thread suggesting the same, what’s in it for Google?

john_moscow 5y ago

The problem with IPv6 is the yield curve. Adopting IPv6 currently yields you some good PR, extra maintenance costs from troubleshooting minor compatibility problems right now, and a great advantage of not losing IPv6-only customers at some distant time in the future, when IPv6-only hosts become a thing. So, from a business perspective, the optimal strategy is to delay the transition (and the ongoing maintenance costs) until IPv6-only customers become a quantifiable number (e.g. you could say that in 5 years about 5-10% of your target audience would not have IPv4, so switching to IPv6 would increase your sales by X%). You can't blame businesses for doing that. You don't play by these rules, you end up one of those companies blogging how they are forced to shut down despite having a marvelous and very sophisticated product. That said, you can change it very easily. Just offer IPv6 traffic at a slightly lower rate than IPv4. So every IPv6 packet costs you less than the IPv4 one. For unlimited connections, offer some rebate based on the fraction of IPv6 packets, or something. This will immediately put the incentives in the right places and the switch will happen at exponential rate.

ipv6_or_nat 5y ago
>That said, you can change it very easily. Just offer IPv6 traffic at a slightly lower rate than IPv4. How many cents per month will make you or anybody care? ISPs don’t even pay for the majority of their bandwidth, they get it for free via settlement free peering. Where’s the rebate going to come from that? On the fraction of bandwidth ISPs pay for, the wholesale rates are less than 5 cents per Mbps. On average a subscriber uses a few Mbps on average. Would 15 cents per month really motivate you to go all in on IPv6? On average bandwidth costs for an ISP are single digit percentages or less of all costs. Even if their wholesalers would fully discount all their IPv6 traffic (why would they do that?!) there’s only so much there to work with.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xony 5y ago

fake news

nikkinana 5y ago

Just do the needful.