5 ms·
If I remember correctly, one reason for the quick adaption of SSL certificates was the combination of Let's Encrypt and Google saying it would improve ranking.
by V__ 5y ago
If I remember correctly, one reason for the quick adaption of SSL certificates was the combination of Let's Encrypt and Google saying it would improve ranking. Why doesn't Google just do the same for IPv6? With all the benefits of IPv6, wouldn't Google benefit from such a move as well?
- RKearney 5y agoTheir cloud platform doesn't even fully support IPv6, so I doubt they would do this before at least getting their own public offerings on board.
- safaci2000 5y agoI was about to say. Cause they can't figure out IPV6 either. Their K8 and VPC networking is still not IPv6 complaint last I checked. If you're bored you can get this [extention](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ipvfoo/ecanpcehffngcegjmadlcijfolapggal?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ipvfoo/ecanpcehffn...) and see just how much of the internet is actually IPv6
- nouney 5y agoGKE can use IPv6 now
- safaci2000 5y agoDo you have a link for any docs on that? Last I looked it was a weird hack using LB that translated IPv6 to K8s' native IPV4
- takeda 5y agoI guess Vint Cerf wasn't hired by Google to provide any kind of input about TCP/IP or future of it.
- adventured 5y agoVint was a trophy for the Google founders; they could, so they did. Zuckerberg no doubt got a similar thrill out of having purchased Carmack's employment.
- ec109685 5y agoFacebook got the only mainstream VR device as well.
- davidwihl 5y agoYour comment belittles the hard work Vint puts in every day. He could easily retire but is still amazingly energetic and engaged. Downvoted.
- takeda 5y agoI don't think GP comment belittles Vint. It belittles Google, for just hiring him for his name and not for his expertise. Vint is very vocal about IPv6 adaptation, yet it sounds like his opinion seems to be treated as if he was some kind of intern there. "Cool Vint, you do your stuff, publish your papers and we do our stuff".
- wmf 5y agoLorenzo Colitti is Google's IPv6 czar but when supporting IPv6 costs (hundreds of) millions of dollars, "input" is not enough. There needs to be a business case which there really isn't so far.
- bushbaba 5y agothe lack of ipv4 addresses is becoming a good reason to make the switch.
- jmillikin 5y agoGCP supports enough IPv6 that you can host sites on it with an external IPv6 address. The user's internal network addresses might be IPv4, but that's (hopefully?) a detail not exposed to the public internet. As evidence, my personal website https://john-millikin.com https://john-millikin.com runs on a GCP e2-micro and is reachable from IPv6-only clients.
- stonegray 5y agoAzure does as well, it's only partially functional though, for example ICMP doesn't work.
- zinekeller 5y ago> Azure does as well, it's only partially functional though, for example ICMP doesn't work. Azure doesn't have a good ICMP implementation even on IPv4.
- tsimionescu 5y agoWell, forcing people to use SSL was easy to sell as an advantage to end users. IPv6 is irrelevant for end users, so it's a much harder sell. Plus, if the big guys don't adopt IPv6 first, than Google would only be hurting their search quality if they demote projects using IPv4 only.
- Spooky23 5y agoI think the issue is that the problem space is unequal. TLS solved a problem that affected everyone, that end users didn’t understand. The ranking incentive made sense. IPv6 honestly doesn’t really solve a problem for anyone. The people who can’t deal with CGNAT or have other problems are a tiny minority, and they have solutions to those problems. The other benefits of IPv6 create more headaches than they solve. Why would you roll the dice and take outages to eliminate IPv4?
- kd913 5y agoUhh this is a very much western view who already benefits from disproportionate allocations of ipv4 addresses. For developing countries where such equipment can be costly and unscalable it does matter.
- ec109685 5y agoDo you have additional data on this? Carrier grade nat equipment or hardware that supports tunneling ipv4 over ipv6 seems like it would be a very small percentage of a consumer network buildout cost.
- PeterisP 5y agoIMHO we aren't seeing these developing countries as early adopters of mass IPv6 or having local-only services move to IPv6-only due to lack of IPv4 addresses. Like, I fully understand that they would be feeling much more pressure to migrate, but I don't see that this pressure working; and if even they aren't pushed to IPv6 then why would the western world do so?
- kd913 5y agohttps://subnettingpractice.com/ip-address-allocation-by-country.html https://subnettingpractice.com/ip-address-allocation-by-coun... The allocation of ipv4 addresses are not fair. These developing Countries deserve the right to host and develop their own tech industries. Already India is mandating the use of ipv6 by the end of the year. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dot-fixes-december-2022-deadline-for-transition-to-new-ip-addresses/articleshow/87541813.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/... China too http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-07/23/c_1628629122784001.htm http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-07/23/c_1628629122784001.htm The rest of the world should enable ipv6 if they wish to easily capture this growing market.
- sneak 5y agoIt somewhat benefits large incumbent cloud providers that the costs of IPv4 blocks are non-trivial, it acts as a moat. I'm not accusing them of having this as their reasoning or objective, but it's only new entrants or those without big war chests who are hurt by IPv4 scarcity. If I were Google or AWS I would actively discourage industrial IPv6 adoption as a strategy.
- Firehawke 5y agoIt's because there are still significant issues in the average user's stack. If I enable IPv6, my ISP puts me behind a single address still and requires NAT that my router won't do.