13 ms·

IPv6 Progress Top Sites 2021

108 points by Sami_Lehtinen 5y ago

TravisHusky 5y ago
Wow; that is a lot worse than I thought. I really wish IPv6 was better understood than it is now, it really is quite a good standard, but it is also quite a bit different than IPv4 which I think scares people away (it can also be hard to remember longer IPv6 addresses).
- seiferteric 5y ago
  > it can also be hard to remember longer IPv6 addresses mDNS helps since you can use hostname.local without having to set up a DNS server. I was going to make a joke blog post about using ipv4 addresses as hostnames so you can "keep using ipv4" while actually using ipv6, but I found you can't have "." in hostnames, so maybe instead use "-".
  - arianvanp 5y ago
    Problem is .local domains don't resolve everywhere . E.g. on mobile or chrome's own DNS stack :(
    - nybble41 5y ago
      If you run your own DNS resolver for your local network, you can use a Discovery Proxy (RFC 8766) to allow unicast DNS resolution of multicast DNS records. I'm using mdns-discovery-proxy[0] (slightly modified to support a newer version of the zeroconf Python library) with bind9 so that xyz.local is mirrored in unicast DNS as xyz.home.arpa. The script (proxy.py in Git; I renamed it) is run with this systemd service (/etc/systemd/system/mdns-discovery-proxy.service): [Unit] Description=DNS-SD Proxy After=network.target network.service [Service] Type=simple DynamicUser=yes ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/mdns-discovery-proxy.py home.arpa 35353 Restart=always RestartSec=30 [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target And the bind9 configuration to forward the zone is (in /etc/bind/named.conf.local): zone "home.arpa" { type forward; forward only; forwarders { 127.0.0.1 port 35353; }; }; [0] https://github.com/nybble41/mdns-discovery-proxy https://github.com/nybble41/mdns-discovery-proxy
    - iknowstuff 5y ago
      For me, both iOS and Chrome on Windows resolve .local.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    Does mDNS work across VPN tunnels? The main reason I delay IPv6 is because I access hosts across the VPN by their IPs, and I don't want to publish their DNS records.
    - mustardo 5y ago
      If you run your own internal DNS server: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-horizon_DNS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-horizon_DNS
      - rhn_mk1 5y ago
        I guess that's equivalent to setting up a hosts file... Unless the DNS resolver can be configured to treat a selected server on the VPN side as authoritative for .mynetwork.
    - megous 5y ago
      Not currently. ff02::fb is used, which has link-local scope.
  - fuzzy2 5y ago
    Also, ULA. You can have both “real” (internet-routable) IPv6 addresses for all devices as well as (fixed) ULA addresses for local communication and ease of use. fd00:dead:beef::/64
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Same with Security Keys, there are a bunch of technologies like this, where you can literally write documentation explaining "This is what we did at our multi-billion dollar business to successfully solve the problem" and people will walk past, fingers stuffed in their ears, hoping that some day the problem will be solved somehow, but, like, magically without them having to change or learn. Just keep doing what they're doing and then, somehow magically it'll be fine. See also: Climate change.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    For most people, IPv4 is a solution to a problem that didn’t require change or learning. It’s just what is used behind the scenes to make the web and chat and email happen. And happen it all does, without trouble, so why lots of money to replace it? What is the sales pitch you would bring to the CEO of a Fortune 500?
    - dcow 5y ago
      There isn't one until IPv6-only ISPs (or plans) pop up offering cheaper connectivity because you don't need an expensive v4 address. NAT sucks and everyone's job would be easier if they didn't have to deal with it, but the CEO likely doesn't care about that and probably just sees the "add IPv6 support" scope and cost estimate and NOPEs out. I love IPv6 btw. I just don't think you'll see anything meaningful happen until FAANG drop IPv4 support. Imagine that. People would convert pretty quick if Google couldn't crawl your site or you couldn't buy an iPhone without IPv6...
      - semi-extrinsic 5y ago
        An IPv4 address still isn't very expensive. I'm paying about $1.30 per month to have a static IPv4 address from my home ISP.
        p1mrx 5y ago
        Your ISP probably hasn't tried to acquire IPv4 addresses recently. https://ipv4.global/reports/ https://ipv4.global/reports/ shows prices around $40/address, so it would take 2-3 years to break even at $1.30/month. (Although, people rent apartments with break-even periods well beyond 10 years, so maybe 2-3 is still fine.)
- akersten 5y ago
  > it really is quite a good standard, I think we need to start judging how good a standard is by how easy it is to implement for its intended purpose. The purpose of IPv6 was to superscede IPv4. 25 years later, only 1/4 of the top sites from this link are IPv6 enabled. That's... well, at some point you have to stop blaming lazy sysadmins or stubborn vendors and start considering that it's genuinely just a bad and hard to understand standard. In 2050 we'll still be on IPv4. That's how bad I think IPv6 is. Technically impressive? Sure. Viable as an understandable network paradigm and designed for widespread real-life use? Looking like no.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    It's not that IPv6 is bad. There are no other, more successful alternative proposals to grow the address space while maintaining end-to-end connectivity. It's just a difficult coordination problem. From a purely technical point of view IPv6 works, today. It's not hard to set up IPv6 networks and connect them together. But there is a lot of IPv4-only equipment, legacy applications, etc. in active use which would have problems with any new protocol.
    - arp242 5y ago
      Not wrong, but I have a feeling that a protocol which changed things less would have caught on a lot faster. IPv6 changes a lot more than just expanding the address space. 32bit IPv4 gives us 4.2 billion IP addresses (although there are fewer usable addresses due to reservations etc.). If we would have just tacked on another byte we'd have 1 trillion (theoretical) IP addresses. Two extra bytes and we'd have some number I don't even know the name of (~2.7e14). Changing from 213.113.223.023 to 142.213.113.223.023 is a lot less invasive, both for users and implementations (although increasing the address space isn't necessarily easy, it doesn't require an entire new stack). Now, these other IPv6 changes aren't necessarily bad and also address real problems as well, but it seems IPv6 changes too much in one step for its own good. In this regard, it's not that dissimilar to Python 3 (except even worse!) Also: one think that struck me about that list is that sites who do implement IPv6 are all Western, and that none of the Asian (mostly Chinese) sites implement IPv6. You'd expect it to be the other way round because Asian/Chinese would benefit a lot more from IPv6 since they have fewer allocated addresses, and their infrastructure also tends to be newer so legacy hardware is less of a concern. I don't know what this means or why this is the case though.
- pantalaimon 5y ago
  Amazon invested so much in IPv4 address space, they have no interest in supporting IPv6.
naranha 5y ago
I'm running my home network IPv6-only since some time and it works fine thanks to DNS64/NAT64. I think once more ISPs start offering DNS64/NAT64 internally the transition will be quite unnoticeable for endusers. Software that still does not work because it uses hardcoded ipv4 addresses or sockets: Steam, WoW (probably many other Games too), node/npm (before version 17), but for the most part it works! The offenders can also mostly be fixed using clatd.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  WoW used to work. A bunch of people at my (IPv6 friendly) ISP used to play it and made a big deal about the fact that WoW was actually IPv6-enabled. At some point they broke it [Edited to clarify: Blizzard broke it, not my ISP]
  - hansel_der 5y ago
    i guess the outcry over the breakage was ... limited?
  - havkd 5y ago
    There’s a checkbox in the wow client to connect through ipv6. I used it a few months ago and it worked properly. Was it broken recently?
- phaer 5y ago
  > The offenders can also mostly be fixed using clatd. I had not heard of https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd before, might be new to others as well: " It allows an IPv6-only host to have IPv4 connectivity that is translated to IPv6 before being routed to an upstream PLAT (which is typically a Stateful NAT64 operated by the ISP) and there translated back to IPv4 before being routed to the IPv4 internet. "
  - naranha 5y ago
    I think Android includes it too, because some services bind to clat-like ipv4s. But I have not investigated this further so far.
sneak 5y ago
HN is still v4-only, the only site I use super regularly that is.
ok123456 5y ago
IPv6 will never be universally adopted because they chose to make baroque auto configuration features, and the propeller heads, who are forcing this on everyone, gaslight us by telling us we shouldn't rely on having a private address space as a way of having control over your own network.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I’m so confused, why can’t you have a private network? It’s the best way to run it. You get a pool of public addresses to use from your ISP that you can use for anything! and then you give yourself the entirety of IPv6 private address space for your internal network.
  - ok123456 5y ago
    But now you're relying on your ISP to do your network addressing for you. What happens when you have multiple sites? Now you have to do more ipv6 epicycles.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Spivak 5y ago
      Sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about using NAT with IPv6 being the best way to set it up. Your ISP gives you a whole pool of public addresses you can use for hosting stuff publicly or forwarding or high availability. None of your devices will have public addresses. Then you use all of the private address space for your internal stuff.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        Well, why don't you just do that? I mean, there's a huge set of local IPv6 addresses for you to use, and odds are all of your computers are already using some (maybe more than 1). You don't need a NAT box at the network edge to set a private network. And iptables support what you described without a problem. But most people prefer to allocate the public addresses to the actual computers, not route them by demand. So the edge machine acts only as a firewall. It's easier, and there are enough addresses.
exabrial 5y ago
I'm going to hold off as long as possible before being forced by silicon valley giants to use ipv6. I do not wish anyone to know how many devices or which device I'm browsing from. NAT is a casual layer of privacy and provides commonplace plausible deniability. IPv6 eliminates that for no personal benefit.
- awestroke 5y ago
  Why can't you NAT with ipv6?
  - p1mrx 5y ago
    One issue is that RFC6724 will cause most clients to prefer IPv4 when the IPv6 address is a ULA (unique local). But if you're hitting a NAT either way, then maybe it doesn't matter.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      Using NAT doesn't force ULA. You can NAT any address you want on your gateway/router.
- mappu 5y ago
  This issue was addressed with IPv6 privacy addresses since Windows XP / Android 4.
- jabl 5y ago
  Don't all OS's in wide usage use the IPv6 privacy extensions by default these days? That is, random addresses, regularly rotated.
- Sunspark 5y ago
  The internet is supposed to work on a server-client model where you can FTP to someone's site, etc. NAT is nothing but a workaround that has caused problems.
  - 5y ago
fnord77 5y ago
my isp (google webpass) is v4 only and I read someplace they will probably never go to v6
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Not sure where you read that, it has supported it for years (just !maybe not everywhere?) here is someone reaching out about their setup having issues in 2014 for example https://mobile.twitter.com/webpass/status/550023116181626880?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/webpass/status/550023116181626880...
- bryan_w 5y ago
  Im on webpass and for a while, I only had v6 connectivity
TekMol 5y ago
Was IPv6 needed at all? What problems would occur if we were just nat-ing everyone behind those 4 billion IPv4 addresses? I run a popular website and I have never heard anyone being unable to use it because it is IPv4 only. I just tried test-ipv6.com and it gives me a score of 0/10, saying "You appear to be able to browse the IPv4 Internet only.". I basically live in the internet. And I am not aware of any problems this causes me.
- mishafb 5y ago
  With IPv6, you don't have CG-NAT, or double NATting, at the ISP level. If both sides are behind CG-NAT, then direct peer-to-peer communication is impossible or at least unstable to establish.
- TacticalCoder 5y ago
  > What problems would occur if we were just nat-ing everyone behind those 4 billion IPv4 addresses? Even with NAT'ing we're running out of IPv4 addresses. Now I NAT on IPv4 at home, even though my router/ISP supports IPv6. First thing I do on any Linux install at home is get rid of IPv6. I don't see where the problem is. I really don't see why my home machines should have an IPv6 IP: the outside world sees my router's IP and that's it. Now I'm certainly misunderstanding all the benefits and security that IPv6 would bring me at home but meanwhile I'll stay on IPv4 and I really don't see what the problem is either.
  - tadfisher 5y ago
    Not a networking expert by any means, but having built out a home network, my understanding is as follows: Benefits-wise, your devices are addressable on the Internet, so it becomes simpler to create peer-to-peer connections, firewall traffic, and create segregated subnets. Security-wise, your devices are addressable on the Internet, so all the workarounds to punch through NAT with terrible security implications aren't needed (I'm thinking UPnP mostly, but STUN/TURN/ICE are easy to get wrong). Essentially, under IPv4+NAT, your devices are already "addressable" via a combination of your router's IP and some form of session token, but securing such traffic depends on the successful implementation of a NAT-traversal protocol by a third party.
torcete 5y ago
I wonder if all those companies stalking movie downloads and ready to harass you are keeping an eye on IPv6 too.
- tadfisher 5y ago
  Makes no difference, you are just as identifiable by your gateway's IPv4 address as you are by your ISP-assigned IPv6 prefix.
rafaelturk 5y ago
I'm puzzled Canva.com is top 25?! kudos
zamadatix 5y ago
Anyone know why there is such a discrepancy between www and non for so many companies?
pabs3 5y ago
It surprises me that the biggest cloud provider (Amazon) doesn't have IPv6. It seems like AWS supports IPv6, so why not Amazon itself?
- hansel_der 5y ago
  probably along the lines of "unwarranted user impact" (google) i.e. if your business depends on something that is working now, don't risk changing it unless absolutely neccesary.
edub 5y ago
I'm on Google Fiber, with the provided Google Wifi router, using a Google Pixelbook running Chrome OS, and cannot access google.com via IPv6 (or any other site for that matter).
deknos 5y ago
is there a tool like testssl, but for ipv6 support of tools/sites/services/hosts?
- lokedhs 5y ago
  Try this one, it may be what you need: https://internet.nl/ https://internet.nl/
justincormack 5y ago
We are testing ipv6 support for Docker Hub, please test it and let us know if you have any issues. See https://www.docker.com/blog/beta-ipv6-support-on-docker-hub-registry/ https://www.docker.com/blog/beta-ipv6-support-on-docker-hub-... - we are testing on a standalone domain first before rolling out.
Havoc 5y ago
Very surprised by this. My pihole indicates it's about 3x ipv4 for each 2x ipv6 resolved. This list suggest much weaker stats...and that's in the top sites that can afford techies to sort it out?

108 points by Sami_Lehtinen 5y ago

Wow; that is a lot worse than I thought. I really wish IPv6 was better understood than it is now, it really is quite a good standard, but it is also quite a bit different than IPv4 which I think scares people away (it can also be hard to remember longer IPv6 addresses).

seiferteric 5y ago
> it can also be hard to remember longer IPv6 addresses mDNS helps since you can use hostname.local without having to set up a DNS server. I was going to make a joke blog post about using ipv4 addresses as hostnames so you can "keep using ipv4" while actually using ipv6, but I found you can't have "." in hostnames, so maybe instead use "-".
- arianvanp 5y ago
  Problem is .local domains don't resolve everywhere . E.g. on mobile or chrome's own DNS stack :(
  - nybble41 5y ago
    If you run your own DNS resolver for your local network, you can use a Discovery Proxy (RFC 8766) to allow unicast DNS resolution of multicast DNS records. I'm using mdns-discovery-proxy[0] (slightly modified to support a newer version of the zeroconf Python library) with bind9 so that xyz.local is mirrored in unicast DNS as xyz.home.arpa. The script (proxy.py in Git; I renamed it) is run with this systemd service (/etc/systemd/system/mdns-discovery-proxy.service): [Unit] Description=DNS-SD Proxy After=network.target network.service [Service] Type=simple DynamicUser=yes ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/mdns-discovery-proxy.py home.arpa 35353 Restart=always RestartSec=30 [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target And the bind9 configuration to forward the zone is (in /etc/bind/named.conf.local): zone "home.arpa" { type forward; forward only; forwarders { 127.0.0.1 port 35353; }; }; [0] https://github.com/nybble41/mdns-discovery-proxy https://github.com/nybble41/mdns-discovery-proxy
  - iknowstuff 5y ago
    For me, both iOS and Chrome on Windows resolve .local.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  Does mDNS work across VPN tunnels? The main reason I delay IPv6 is because I access hosts across the VPN by their IPs, and I don't want to publish their DNS records.
  - mustardo 5y ago
    If you run your own internal DNS server: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-horizon_DNS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-horizon_DNS
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      I guess that's equivalent to setting up a hosts file... Unless the DNS resolver can be configured to treat a selected server on the VPN side as authoritative for .mynetwork.
  - megous 5y ago
    Not currently. ff02::fb is used, which has link-local scope.
- fuzzy2 5y ago
  Also, ULA. You can have both “real” (internet-routable) IPv6 addresses for all devices as well as (fixed) ULA addresses for local communication and ease of use. fd00:dead:beef::/64
tialaramex 5y ago
Same with Security Keys, there are a bunch of technologies like this, where you can literally write documentation explaining "This is what we did at our multi-billion dollar business to successfully solve the problem" and people will walk past, fingers stuffed in their ears, hoping that some day the problem will be solved somehow, but, like, magically without them having to change or learn. Just keep doing what they're doing and then, somehow magically it'll be fine. See also: Climate change.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  For most people, IPv4 is a solution to a problem that didn’t require change or learning. It’s just what is used behind the scenes to make the web and chat and email happen. And happen it all does, without trouble, so why lots of money to replace it? What is the sales pitch you would bring to the CEO of a Fortune 500?
  - dcow 5y ago
    There isn't one until IPv6-only ISPs (or plans) pop up offering cheaper connectivity because you don't need an expensive v4 address. NAT sucks and everyone's job would be easier if they didn't have to deal with it, but the CEO likely doesn't care about that and probably just sees the "add IPv6 support" scope and cost estimate and NOPEs out. I love IPv6 btw. I just don't think you'll see anything meaningful happen until FAANG drop IPv4 support. Imagine that. People would convert pretty quick if Google couldn't crawl your site or you couldn't buy an iPhone without IPv6...
    - semi-extrinsic 5y ago
      An IPv4 address still isn't very expensive. I'm paying about $1.30 per month to have a static IPv4 address from my home ISP.
      - p1mrx 5y ago
        Your ISP probably hasn't tried to acquire IPv4 addresses recently. https://ipv4.global/reports/ https://ipv4.global/reports/ shows prices around $40/address, so it would take 2-3 years to break even at $1.30/month. (Although, people rent apartments with break-even periods well beyond 10 years, so maybe 2-3 is still fine.)
akersten 5y ago
> it really is quite a good standard, I think we need to start judging how good a standard is by how easy it is to implement for its intended purpose. The purpose of IPv6 was to superscede IPv4. 25 years later, only 1/4 of the top sites from this link are IPv6 enabled. That's... well, at some point you have to stop blaming lazy sysadmins or stubborn vendors and start considering that it's genuinely just a bad and hard to understand standard. In 2050 we'll still be on IPv4. That's how bad I think IPv6 is. Technically impressive? Sure. Viable as an understandable network paradigm and designed for widespread real-life use? Looking like no.
- nybble41 5y ago
  It's not that IPv6 is bad. There are no other, more successful alternative proposals to grow the address space while maintaining end-to-end connectivity. It's just a difficult coordination problem. From a purely technical point of view IPv6 works, today. It's not hard to set up IPv6 networks and connect them together. But there is a lot of IPv4-only equipment, legacy applications, etc. in active use which would have problems with any new protocol.
  - arp242 5y ago
    Not wrong, but I have a feeling that a protocol which changed things less would have caught on a lot faster. IPv6 changes a lot more than just expanding the address space. 32bit IPv4 gives us 4.2 billion IP addresses (although there are fewer usable addresses due to reservations etc.). If we would have just tacked on another byte we'd have 1 trillion (theoretical) IP addresses. Two extra bytes and we'd have some number I don't even know the name of (~2.7e14). Changing from 213.113.223.023 to 142.213.113.223.023 is a lot less invasive, both for users and implementations (although increasing the address space isn't necessarily easy, it doesn't require an entire new stack). Now, these other IPv6 changes aren't necessarily bad and also address real problems as well, but it seems IPv6 changes too much in one step for its own good. In this regard, it's not that dissimilar to Python 3 (except even worse!) Also: one think that struck me about that list is that sites who do implement IPv6 are all Western, and that none of the Asian (mostly Chinese) sites implement IPv6. You'd expect it to be the other way round because Asian/Chinese would benefit a lot more from IPv6 since they have fewer allocated addresses, and their infrastructure also tends to be newer so legacy hardware is less of a concern. I don't know what this means or why this is the case though.
pantalaimon 5y ago
Amazon invested so much in IPv4 address space, they have no interest in supporting IPv6.

naranha 5y ago

I'm running my home network IPv6-only since some time and it works fine thanks to DNS64/NAT64. I think once more ISPs start offering DNS64/NAT64 internally the transition will be quite unnoticeable for endusers. Software that still does not work because it uses hardcoded ipv4 addresses or sockets: Steam, WoW (probably many other Games too), node/npm (before version 17), but for the most part it works! The offenders can also mostly be fixed using clatd.

tialaramex 5y ago
WoW used to work. A bunch of people at my (IPv6 friendly) ISP used to play it and made a big deal about the fact that WoW was actually IPv6-enabled. At some point they broke it [Edited to clarify: Blizzard broke it, not my ISP]
- hansel_der 5y ago
  i guess the outcry over the breakage was ... limited?
- havkd 5y ago
  There’s a checkbox in the wow client to connect through ipv6. I used it a few months ago and it worked properly. Was it broken recently?
phaer 5y ago
> The offenders can also mostly be fixed using clatd. I had not heard of https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd https://github.com/toreanderson/clatd before, might be new to others as well: " It allows an IPv6-only host to have IPv4 connectivity that is translated to IPv6 before being routed to an upstream PLAT (which is typically a Stateful NAT64 operated by the ISP) and there translated back to IPv4 before being routed to the IPv4 internet. "
- naranha 5y ago
  I think Android includes it too, because some services bind to clat-like ipv4s. But I have not investigated this further so far.

sneak 5y ago

HN is still v4-only, the only site I use super regularly that is.

ok123456 5y ago

IPv6 will never be universally adopted because they chose to make baroque auto configuration features, and the propeller heads, who are forcing this on everyone, gaslight us by telling us we shouldn't rely on having a private address space as a way of having control over your own network.

Spivak 5y ago
I’m so confused, why can’t you have a private network? It’s the best way to run it. You get a pool of public addresses to use from your ISP that you can use for anything! and then you give yourself the entirety of IPv6 private address space for your internal network.
- ok123456 5y ago
  But now you're relying on your ISP to do your network addressing for you. What happens when you have multiple sites? Now you have to do more ipv6 epicycles.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about using NAT with IPv6 being the best way to set it up. Your ISP gives you a whole pool of public addresses you can use for hosting stuff publicly or forwarding or high availability. None of your devices will have public addresses. Then you use all of the private address space for your internal stuff.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      Well, why don't you just do that? I mean, there's a huge set of local IPv6 addresses for you to use, and odds are all of your computers are already using some (maybe more than 1). You don't need a NAT box at the network edge to set a private network. And iptables support what you described without a problem. But most people prefer to allocate the public addresses to the actual computers, not route them by demand. So the edge machine acts only as a firewall. It's easier, and there are enough addresses.

exabrial 5y ago

I'm going to hold off as long as possible before being forced by silicon valley giants to use ipv6. I do not wish anyone to know how many devices or which device I'm browsing from. NAT is a casual layer of privacy and provides commonplace plausible deniability. IPv6 eliminates that for no personal benefit.

awestroke 5y ago
Why can't you NAT with ipv6?
- p1mrx 5y ago
  One issue is that RFC6724 will cause most clients to prefer IPv4 when the IPv6 address is a ULA (unique local). But if you're hitting a NAT either way, then maybe it doesn't matter.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    Using NAT doesn't force ULA. You can NAT any address you want on your gateway/router.
mappu 5y ago
This issue was addressed with IPv6 privacy addresses since Windows XP / Android 4.
jabl 5y ago
Don't all OS's in wide usage use the IPv6 privacy extensions by default these days? That is, random addresses, regularly rotated.
Sunspark 5y ago
The internet is supposed to work on a server-client model where you can FTP to someone's site, etc. NAT is nothing but a workaround that has caused problems.
- 5y ago

fnord77 5y ago

my isp (google webpass) is v4 only and I read someplace they will probably never go to v6

zamadatix 5y ago
Not sure where you read that, it has supported it for years (just !maybe not everywhere?) here is someone reaching out about their setup having issues in 2014 for example https://mobile.twitter.com/webpass/status/550023116181626880?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/webpass/status/550023116181626880...
bryan_w 5y ago
Im on webpass and for a while, I only had v6 connectivity

TekMol 5y ago

Was IPv6 needed at all? What problems would occur if we were just nat-ing everyone behind those 4 billion IPv4 addresses? I run a popular website and I have never heard anyone being unable to use it because it is IPv4 only. I just tried test-ipv6.com and it gives me a score of 0/10, saying "You appear to be able to browse the IPv4 Internet only.". I basically live in the internet. And I am not aware of any problems this causes me.

mishafb 5y ago
With IPv6, you don't have CG-NAT, or double NATting, at the ISP level. If both sides are behind CG-NAT, then direct peer-to-peer communication is impossible or at least unstable to establish.
TacticalCoder 5y ago
> What problems would occur if we were just nat-ing everyone behind those 4 billion IPv4 addresses? Even with NAT'ing we're running out of IPv4 addresses. Now I NAT on IPv4 at home, even though my router/ISP supports IPv6. First thing I do on any Linux install at home is get rid of IPv6. I don't see where the problem is. I really don't see why my home machines should have an IPv6 IP: the outside world sees my router's IP and that's it. Now I'm certainly misunderstanding all the benefits and security that IPv6 would bring me at home but meanwhile I'll stay on IPv4 and I really don't see what the problem is either.
- tadfisher 5y ago
  Not a networking expert by any means, but having built out a home network, my understanding is as follows: Benefits-wise, your devices are addressable on the Internet, so it becomes simpler to create peer-to-peer connections, firewall traffic, and create segregated subnets. Security-wise, your devices are addressable on the Internet, so all the workarounds to punch through NAT with terrible security implications aren't needed (I'm thinking UPnP mostly, but STUN/TURN/ICE are easy to get wrong). Essentially, under IPv4+NAT, your devices are already "addressable" via a combination of your router's IP and some form of session token, but securing such traffic depends on the successful implementation of a NAT-traversal protocol by a third party.

torcete 5y ago

I wonder if all those companies stalking movie downloads and ready to harass you are keeping an eye on IPv6 too.

tadfisher 5y ago
Makes no difference, you are just as identifiable by your gateway's IPv4 address as you are by your ISP-assigned IPv6 prefix.

rafaelturk 5y ago

I'm puzzled Canva.com is top 25?! kudos

zamadatix 5y ago

Anyone know why there is such a discrepancy between www and non for so many companies?

pabs3 5y ago

It surprises me that the biggest cloud provider (Amazon) doesn't have IPv6. It seems like AWS supports IPv6, so why not Amazon itself?

hansel_der 5y ago
probably along the lines of "unwarranted user impact" (google) i.e. if your business depends on something that is working now, don't risk changing it unless absolutely neccesary.

edub 5y ago

I'm on Google Fiber, with the provided Google Wifi router, using a Google Pixelbook running Chrome OS, and cannot access google.com via IPv6 (or any other site for that matter).

deknos 5y ago

is there a tool like testssl, but for ipv6 support of tools/sites/services/hosts?

lokedhs 5y ago
Try this one, it may be what you need: https://internet.nl/ https://internet.nl/

justincormack 5y ago

We are testing ipv6 support for Docker Hub, please test it and let us know if you have any issues. See https://www.docker.com/blog/beta-ipv6-support-on-docker-hub-registry/ https://www.docker.com/blog/beta-ipv6-support-on-docker-hub-... - we are testing on a standalone domain first before rolling out.

Havoc 5y ago

Very surprised by this. My pihole indicates it's about 3x ipv4 for each 2x ipv6 resolved. This list suggest much weaker stats...and that's in the top sites that can afford techies to sort it out?