5 ms·

Why does it feel like IPv6 has failed? There's a real need for bigger address space, but it looks like IPv6 is too much of a hassle.

toast0 3y ago
It hasn't exactly failed. Depending on where you look, it's in the neighborhood of 40% of traffic, although variability is very high. 40% market share isn't really failing, although it sure does feel like it could have been better. IPv4 is still a must, and IPv6 is optional in most circumstances.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  Failed in a sense that it was intended to replace IPv4. At current rate it's going to take additional 10+ years to replace IPv4. Also, many don't seem eager to adopt it. If that is due to the protocol or just the lack of tooling, I don't know.
  - copperx 3y ago
    IPv6 failing is a self-fulfulling prophecy. It isn't that hard to implement, but it has become a meme.
ZeroSolstice 3y ago
Yeah I wouldn't say it failed its just that there wasn't a financial motive to move towards IPv6. As more networked devices and the device data itself becomes important moving to IPv6 will follow. Residential ISP's and some cloud providers are the biggest hold-up as most mobile carriers already dual stack and Tier 1 transit providers have had IPv6 for at least a decade or more.
- saghm 3y ago
  I wonder if part of the incentive problem was that the companies with the most traffic would have already invested heavily in securing sufficient IPv4 address space for their usage. If so, the ones with the most ability to influence everyone to swap over would be the ones with the least need to do so, and then the smaller players who might need IPv6 most for future growth wouldn't have enough users yet to incentivize the infrastructure changes needed.
  - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
    Yes this is a good observation. They would also be the first to be on the lookout for good deals on IPv4 space, furthering their acquisitions early on before the IP address market took off. Most notably though they would also be the companies working or providing suggestions on needs based policies for their respective RIR.
smcleod 3y ago
Looking at my routers stats my average monthly internet usage is around 65% IPv6. I wouldn’t say it’s failed - but the roll out has been slow.
commandersaki 3y ago
Obligatory https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html (and that was written in 2002)
- ianburrell 3y ago
  That article is obsolete. There are newer standards that fix the problems with IPv6 and make it usable. Slow standard development big reason for slow adoption of IPv6. But IPv6 is now usable; Hacker News and Reddit are the only IPv4 tabs I have open, the rest are IPv6. A good example is NAT64/DNS64 which allows IPv6-only hosts to access IPv4 internet. The result is that makes sense to use IPv6-only or IPv6-first for new networks.
  - commandersaki 3y ago
    25+ years and there’s no way to have ipv6 only connectivity and access the Internet. Definitely a failure.
    - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
      Do you have a reference for when the Internet as a whole was supposed to cut over to IPv6 only? There are plenty of organizations that have transition mandates but those are self imposed and would easily be delayed for other monetary business objectives. The Internet as we know it was only created/available in 1993[1] and while some RIR's have exhausted their available IPv4 space it doesn't mean IPv4 addresses are not available. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-internet-anniversary https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-int...
      - commandersaki 3y ago
        No but the idea of having a “cut over” is the problem.
        ZeroSolstice 3y ago
ChainOfFools 3y ago
I think the failure isn't IPv6 itself, but the dreadful prospect of having to step from the boat to the dock: simultaneous production implementations of ipv4 and IPv6 in the same organization. Mostly this is a DNS headache, especially if you're already segmented into a bunch of different split horizons due to organizational boundaries or vpns or what have you, and unlike software networking is almost necessarily done direct to production as staging is extraordinarily complex and expensive, and again unlike software development is not part of the daily iteration cycle but instead of once or twice in a decade type of thing. anyone managing or responsible for managing that infrastructure is going to need an extremely compelling reason to pursue a switch thanks to the two systems obstacle.
supertrope 3y ago
Chicken and egg problem. In many countries the legacy of telecom access oligopoly led to an ISP oligopoly. If your ISP doesn't support it then you won't bother deploying since there's no IPv6 route. The ISPs won't deploy it until "there's customer demand" (even though there can be no customer demand until they turn it on - hardware and infrastructure have to come first before layers on top can be deployed). Switching to an ISP with IPv6 is usually not an option. Eyeball networks were waiting for the content networks to deploy and vice versa. Now that eyeball networks generally moved first the content networks say their anti-spam and anti-attack solutions don't have IPv6. Many IT pros have become used to and even attached to Network Address Translation and specific IPv4 addresses. Some have beliefs like reducing security attack surface requires disabling IPv6, NAT is a firewall, or they reflexively blame any network issue on IPv6. If the cryptocurrency bubble hadn't popped maybe there could have been a IPv6 coin that rewarded mining addresses. Mine the one correct address out of 2^128 that block and earn a IPv6coin (joke).

toast0 3y ago

It hasn't exactly failed. Depending on where you look, it's in the neighborhood of 40% of traffic, although variability is very high. 40% market share isn't really failing, although it sure does feel like it could have been better. IPv4 is still a must, and IPv6 is optional in most circumstances.

zigzag312 3y ago
Failed in a sense that it was intended to replace IPv4. At current rate it's going to take additional 10+ years to replace IPv4. Also, many don't seem eager to adopt it. If that is due to the protocol or just the lack of tooling, I don't know.
- copperx 3y ago
  IPv6 failing is a self-fulfulling prophecy. It isn't that hard to implement, but it has become a meme.

ZeroSolstice 3y ago

Yeah I wouldn't say it failed its just that there wasn't a financial motive to move towards IPv6. As more networked devices and the device data itself becomes important moving to IPv6 will follow. Residential ISP's and some cloud providers are the biggest hold-up as most mobile carriers already dual stack and Tier 1 transit providers have had IPv6 for at least a decade or more.

saghm 3y ago
I wonder if part of the incentive problem was that the companies with the most traffic would have already invested heavily in securing sufficient IPv4 address space for their usage. If so, the ones with the most ability to influence everyone to swap over would be the ones with the least need to do so, and then the smaller players who might need IPv6 most for future growth wouldn't have enough users yet to incentivize the infrastructure changes needed.
- ZeroSolstice 3y ago
  Yes this is a good observation. They would also be the first to be on the lookout for good deals on IPv4 space, furthering their acquisitions early on before the IP address market took off. Most notably though they would also be the companies working or providing suggestions on needs based policies for their respective RIR.

smcleod 3y ago

Looking at my routers stats my average monthly internet usage is around 65% IPv6. I wouldn’t say it’s failed - but the roll out has been slow.

commandersaki 3y ago

Obligatory https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html (and that was written in 2002)

ianburrell 3y ago
That article is obsolete. There are newer standards that fix the problems with IPv6 and make it usable. Slow standard development big reason for slow adoption of IPv6. But IPv6 is now usable; Hacker News and Reddit are the only IPv4 tabs I have open, the rest are IPv6. A good example is NAT64/DNS64 which allows IPv6-only hosts to access IPv4 internet. The result is that makes sense to use IPv6-only or IPv6-first for new networks.
- commandersaki 3y ago
  25+ years and there’s no way to have ipv6 only connectivity and access the Internet. Definitely a failure.
  - ZeroSolstice 3y ago
    Do you have a reference for when the Internet as a whole was supposed to cut over to IPv6 only? There are plenty of organizations that have transition mandates but those are self imposed and would easily be delayed for other monetary business objectives. The Internet as we know it was only created/available in 1993[1] and while some RIR's have exhausted their available IPv4 space it doesn't mean IPv4 addresses are not available. [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-internet-anniversary https://www.npr.org/2023/04/30/1172276538/world-wide-web-int...
    - commandersaki 3y ago
      No but the idea of having a “cut over” is the problem.
      - ZeroSolstice 3y ago

ChainOfFools 3y ago

I think the failure isn't IPv6 itself, but the dreadful prospect of having to step from the boat to the dock: simultaneous production implementations of ipv4 and IPv6 in the same organization. Mostly this is a DNS headache, especially if you're already segmented into a bunch of different split horizons due to organizational boundaries or vpns or what have you, and unlike software networking is almost necessarily done direct to production as staging is extraordinarily complex and expensive, and again unlike software development is not part of the daily iteration cycle but instead of once or twice in a decade type of thing. anyone managing or responsible for managing that infrastructure is going to need an extremely compelling reason to pursue a switch thanks to the two systems obstacle.

supertrope 3y ago

Chicken and egg problem. In many countries the legacy of telecom access oligopoly led to an ISP oligopoly. If your ISP doesn't support it then you won't bother deploying since there's no IPv6 route. The ISPs won't deploy it until "there's customer demand" (even though there can be no customer demand until they turn it on - hardware and infrastructure have to come first before layers on top can be deployed). Switching to an ISP with IPv6 is usually not an option. Eyeball networks were waiting for the content networks to deploy and vice versa. Now that eyeball networks generally moved first the content networks say their anti-spam and anti-attack solutions don't have IPv6. Many IT pros have become used to and even attached to Network Address Translation and specific IPv4 addresses. Some have beliefs like reducing security attack surface requires disabling IPv6, NAT is a firewall, or they reflexively blame any network issue on IPv6. If the cryptocurrency bubble hadn't popped maybe there could have been a IPv6 coin that rewarded mining addresses. Mine the one correct address out of 2^128 that block and earn a IPv6coin (joke).