7 ms·
Outstanding. As Google’s IPv6 traffic portion approaches 50% (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics
by kstrauser 2y ago
Outstanding. As Google’s IPv6 traffic portion approaches 50% (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) it’s clear IPv6 is here, now, today. I wouldn’t dream of launching a new public-facing greenfield project without it.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoIPv4 stuff is accessible over IPv6. It's just the other way around that is not the case.
- ComputerGuru 2y agoNot by default it’s not. An ipv6-only deployment cannot natively access an ipv4 network, there is no backwards comparability in the protocol.
- ahoef 2y agoOne of the many missed opportunities of IPv6.
- ziedaniel1 2y agoWhat are some others?
- teraflop 2y agoI keep seeing people say this, but nobody ever takes the next step of proposing how this "missed opportunity" might have been fixed. The reality is that there is no possible way IPv6 could have been designed that would both solve the IPv4 address exhaustion problem and natively interoperate with IPv4. When you send a packet to an IPv4 host, it needs to know where to send the response, and there simply aren't enough bits in the IPv4 header to fit more than 2^32 possible addresses. You need something in the middle to translate between IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, and we already have that: it's called NAT64. It works the same way you would expect NAT to, and just like NAT on IPv4, there's no need to codify it as an explicit part of the IP protocol itself.
- Bluecobra 2y agoI think it was bad timing. We might have been able to migrate to IPv6 wholesale when the Internet was much smaller in the early 90s. One thing that comes to mind is the kumbaya moment when everyone got together to switch from BGP v3 to BGP v4 to support CIDR.
- dboreham 2y agoThat was the plan. V6 was killed by NAT and the commercial forces that promoted its use.
- kstrauser 2y ago"Killed" is a bit harsh, given that it's half of all Google's traffic. A huge chunk of that is probably from cell phones where IPv6 support is the norm.
- Borg3 2y agoNot really.. IPv6 was theoretically ready in 1997. But, it was theoretical. It was still buggy. In 2000s Internet expansion skyrocketed and noone really cared about IPv6. Buggy, too different from IPv4, basically overengineered. They made prediction that was absolutly off.. And thats why adoption is crappy.
- andrewshadura 2y agoIPv6 is not overengineered. It is, in fact, simpler in design than IPv4.
- throw0101a 2y ago> We might have been able to migrate to IPv6 wholesale when the Internet was much smaller in the early 90s. In the early 1990s IPng/IPv6 was not yet invented, and when it was being considered they realized a flag-day (like (mostly) happened with NCP->IP) was unlikely: We believe that it is not possible to have a "flag-day" form of transition in which all hosts and routers must change over at once. The size, complexity, and distributed administration of the Internet make such a cutover impossible. Rather, IPng will need to co-exist with IPv4 for some period of time. There are a number of ways to achieve this co-existence such as requiring hosts to support two stacks, converting between protocols, or using backward compatible extensions to IPv4. Each scheme has its strengths and weaknesses, which have to be weighed. Furthermore, we note that, in all probability, there will be IPv4 hosts on the Internet effectively forever. IPng must provide mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng has become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet. * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726#section-5.5 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726#section-5.5
- commandersaki 2y agoI'm pretty sure we're discussing about connecting to the Internet. What I understood is being implied is that ipv6 has little utility if it cannot access ipv4, but is not the case the other way around.
- Arnt 2y agoHow would v6 connect to v4? Specifically, how would the return packets back from v4 to v6 be routed?
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoThrough a NAT64 NAT. Which is extra work, but not that bad.
- Arnt 2y agoWell, we have that. What GP refers to is a missed opportunity, so NAT64 can't be what GP has in mind.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- commandersaki 2y agoNot really my point, was just pointing out there's scant incentive to transition from the incumbent.
- Arnt 2y agoAnd to do that, you mentioned a condition that's either ① satisfied by current IPv6 or ② impossible to satisfy, and for which that's clear on even a moment's reflection. Not sure which of those two you had in mind, but in either case: Please don't do such things.
- commandersaki 2y ago
- pclmulqdq 2y agoI get that you're trying to make a point, but NAT64 makes this not a real problem. Every practical use of IPv6 can access IPv4 hosts.
- kitkat_new 2y agohow can I access IPV4 stuff over IPv6?
- Bluecobra 2y agoIt does seamlessly work w/ services like Apple's Private Relay. I was surprised to see an IPv6 address when checking my IP address on external websites. Maybe eventually proxies like this might be the solve for this.
- exabrial 2y agoThe fact that a company like monopolistic, abusive, privacy invading company like Google that desperately desperately wants me to run ipv6, ensures that I will disable it on every device I own and corporate network I run.
- Arnt 2y agoThey want you to run IPv4 too.
- nobody9999 2y ago>They want you to run IPv4 too. Exactly. I'd expect that they don't much care which version of IP you use, as long as they can show you ads -- which is their business model after all.
- Arnt 2y agoI… think that at the end of the day, Google wants you to run v6. Google competes with Facebook. Facebook wants sites to host Facebook Pages and such, which needs no IP addresses. Google wants lots of websites and other services on an open web, to which it can sell lots of ads, and for which it can run a good search engine that again brings in lots of opportunities. A lack of IP addresses isn't a problem for Facebook, but it is one for people who want to host new web sites and other services. And therefore Google wants to alleviate that problem, with which IPv6 can help.
- colechristensen 2y agoCalm down. Please try to make your point less flamboyantly.
- Workaccount2 2y agoThis is like boycotting 5G cell phones because you don't like Verizon.
- franga2000 2y agoExcellent logic! Hitler drank water and, if you had the chance to ask him, he would have likely suggested you also drink water. Does that mean you won't drink water now?
- mort96 2y agoNothing's realistically dropping support for v4 any time soon, so v6 support is optional. On the other hand, we're far, far away from all users supporting v6, so v4 support is not optional. Running a single IP stack is infinitely simpler and easier than running two concurrently, and until that "single IP stack" can be v6, I see very little reason to support it.
- zoky 2y ago> Running a single IP stack is infinitely simpler and easier than running two concurrently I’d say it’s marginally simpler. Unequivocally it’s quantifiably simpler. But infinitely simpler? That’s a pretty tall claim to make.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoDepends on your users; there are, for instance, plenty of phones that only natively have v6 and have to use NAT64 to reach v4 websites. So if you have such users, there might be a benefit to supporting v6 directly.
- mort96 2y agoAs you said though, those users can reach v4 websites.
- briffle 2y agoyes, with the increased latency of having to travel to the NAT64 server first. This can also cause you to not use the nearest CDN, etc.
- bigfatkitten 2y agoThe NAT64 server for those users is in the same place the CGNAT used to be.
- sylware 2y agoIn my country, nearly all ISPs provide native IPv6, and I include mobile internet (we are closer to 100% than 50%).