9 ms·
Schrödinger's IPv6 Cat
- jakubsuchy 2y agoI work for a major open source network software company, we support IPv6 natively and in the past 2 years I've been asked about IPv6 by my customers exactly...zero times.
- orangeboats 2y agoMy company would only ask for IPv6 if a software doesn't support IPv6 though.
- anyfoo 2y agoSonic (beloved Bay Area ISP) got pestered with requests for IPv6, until they finally natively implemented it for their fiber, even though they had 6rd tunnels before. But granted, Sonic is favored by enthusiasts, so they likely have a higher share of customers caring about such technicalities. And even then the ratio of users actively asking for it may have been tiny.
- narcity 2y ago[flagged]
- teddyh 2y agoShown in the article, but not linked: Google's IPv6 adoption statistics: <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html> Facebook's IPv6 adoption statistics: <https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_total_adoption https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_total_adoption>
- boredatoms 2y agoMy hunch is that AWS charging for v4 addresses will start applying pressure across a broad cross-section of businesses as they start asking why don’t they just use the free thing
- denkmoon 2y agoWhere I work there is almost nobody with any IPv6 experience and certainly nobody willing to come forth and push for adoption. We just push the increasing cost of NAT gateways etc onto our customers.
- akdor1154 2y agoHalf of AWS services aren't even available from an IPv6 endpoint, it's a clusterfuck. I'm all for carrot and stick but they are making a giant mess of it. Source: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-support.html#ipv6-service-support https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su... , see 'IPv6 only support' column.
- cyberax 2y agoYeah. For example, ECR (Elastic Container Registry) is _not_ available on IPv6. Anything "serverless" such as ElastiCache or RDS is also not available. So it means that you can't have a fully-IPv6 stack for any modern application on AWS.
- simoncion 2y ago> ... see 'IPv6 only support' column. Is that relevant? There's nothing wrong with having RFC1918 addresses and globally-routable IPv6 addresses assigned to your VPC. Have the RFC1918 addresses accessing IPv4-only AWS resources and the globally-routable IPv6 addresses serving the world. Easy. After all, the major cloud providers don't charge for RFC1918 addresses... they just charge for globally-routable IPv4 addresses.
- pvtmert 2y agoI am not sure if it is me on the article sounds like it was passed through an LLM. These days I see more and more content similar to how the chat GPT would generate and describe things
- huqedato 2y agoIndeed! Look at these formulations: "Respecting these governance frameworks is crucial to maintaining the open, collaborative model that underpins global Internet development and its technological evolution ... collaborative approaches that engage technical communities, promote open standards, and prioritise interoperability are essential... To overcome these challenges, a strategic approach combining economic and operational incentives with collaborative governance is essential. Governments and organisations must take proactive steps to create a more supportive environment... By combining these measures, enterprises and network operators can address the barriers to IPv6 adoption while fostering collaboration between governments, industry leaders, and the technical community. This approach ensures that the transition to IPv6 remains inclusive, efficient, and aligned with the Internet’s principles of openness and innovation." Purely LLM gibberish...:))
- rmwaite 2y agoI'm not convinced. I don't think this is gibberish.
- pixelesque 2y agoHow is that gibberish? It's clearly a policy paper/article, and the wording is very in-line with that: it's wordy, but there's nothing factually wrong or outlandish in it.
- rvnx 2y ago"seamless", appearing 5 times. Everything is "seamless" with ChatGPT. IPv6 is seamless, etc...
- jgalt212 2y agoOnly if one delves.
- denkmoon 2y agoNot a great writeup. The IPv6 Cat thing is tortured and the article feels meandering and mostly pointless. Is the intended audience policy makers?
- fargle 2y ago> One key reason for this uneven progress is the extension of IPv4’s lifespan through interim technologies like Network Address Translation (NAT) and IPv4 address transfers. they completely ignore the actual problem with IPv6 which is that they didn't just extend IPv4 in a straightforward manner. they could have made the address fields 64 bits and been done with it. but, oh no, they had to make it the protocol for the ages. it's completely analogous to the failed Intel Itanium vs. AMD x64.
- Dylan16807 2y agoI've never seen anyone explain a "straightforward" way to extend the bits without having 90% of the same adoption difficulty. What's your idea, specifically? Also extension mechanisms like that already exist as part of ipv6.
- fargle 2y agonot have 128 bit addresses for one thing. 64 bits would have been fine. that was one of the biggest consternations that's a huge hit for small packets. so nat sucks. we needed to have something better. but instead of just extending to 64 bit src/dest addresses, align the fields and drop the checksum or any straightforward extension like that we got an entirely new protocol with new rules, nuances and complexity. so people just said nope. if it had been just a superset of IP with a different packet format and wider fields, it would have been adopted widely 20 years ago. this wasn't intended to be a contentious take, btw: i was genuinely surprised that the article was ignoring this take. it was a very common feeling in the late 90s and 2000s when IPv6 was coming out. "over-engineered"
- Plasmoid 2y ago> What's your idea, specifically? This is the problem. Lots of arm-chair protocol engineers claim it'd be easy if 'They did X'. Of course, these immediately fall apart under the barest of scrutiny but they keep coming up. Here is your challenge. Create a way to add this address space extension in a way that doesn't break backwards compatibility. Remember, you need to be specific how you would add the change and how it would keep backwards compatibility.
- apitman 2y agoOne of my pet hot takes is that IPv6 will never exceed ~60% adoption. NAT and SNI routing (aka virtual hosts at the TLS layer) solve most problems for most users fairly well.
- aidenn0 2y agoEyeballing a sigmoid curve fit to the google's IPv6 charts would support that.
- favflam 2y agoMy ISP no longer allows port-forwarding of ipv4 addresses as 1 public ip is shared amongst many ISP customers. This is due to a migration to MAP-E. IPV6 is pretty much my only choice for hosting stuff in offices and at home. Is MAP-E becoming prevalent?
- rendaw 2y agoI feel like lots of providers in Japan are using it now. MAP-E is awful, it doesn't use typical IPv6 acquisition methods and the ipv4 address/allowed forwarding ports are calculated based on the IPv6 address (using a public/fixed table?).
- UI_at_80x24 2y agoQuasi related; how does one find out if your ISP is using CGNAT? I'm rather lucky in that my ISP recently started offering IPv6 (and somehow my workstation appears to be using it by as the default), but none of the other PC's on my network do. (Win11 change perhaps?)
- Arnavion 2y agoCheck the IP that your router receives on its WAN interface and compare it to the IP printed by internet services like Google (search for "what is my ip" and there'll be a special card among the results) or https://ipinfo.io/ip https://ipinfo.io/ip . If they're not the same (because your router's IP is a private IP like 192.168.#.# or 10.#.#.#) then your router is being NAT'd.
- jasomill 2y agoThe most reliable way is to compare your ISP-assigned address to the response from any one of a number of services that return the caller's IP address (e.g., https://checkip.amazonaws.com/ https://checkip.amazonaws.com/).
- FujiApple 2y agoYou can, with several caveats, detect which hop(s) on the path perform NAT by using some trickery [1]: > NAT devices are detected by observing a difference in the expected and actual checksum of the UDP packet that is returned as the part of the Original Datagram in the ICMP Time Exceeded message. If they differ then it indicates that a NAT device has modified the packet. This happens because the NAT device must recalculate the UDP checksum after modifying the packet (i.e. translating the source port) and so the checksum in the UDP packet that is nested in the ICMP error may not, depending on the device, match the original checksum. [1] https://github.com/fujiapple852/trippy/releases/tag/0.11.0 https://github.com/fujiapple852/trippy/releases/tag/0.11.0
- ironhaven 2y agoI don't know of any ISP that will give you a public ipv4 address for free. More interesting is windows 11 auto configuring ipv6. Does you pc have a public ipv6 address starting with 2:: or fe80:: link local address? Quick ipv6 crash course. Instead of DHCPv4 (there is DHCPv6 but it's optional) being required for address configuations, ipv6 uses somting called Stateless address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC). Normaly your router sends out Router advertizments packets and this tells devices about the default gateway, public prefix, dns etc... and pc will generate a public ip of (64 bit public prefix):(64 bit random number). It seems like Windows 10 and eariler will not do ipv6 unless your router advertises it. TL;DR learning ipv6 is easier than disabling it at this point
- idatum 2y agoEvery post about IPv6 and its failure is about friction. Friction for the inevitable march towards adoption. As usual with English, the British master it, and they have a term for bureaucratic friction: "The Blob"
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoThe Blob is a political insult towards the civil service by senior Tory leaders, who blamed them for resisting their policies for political reasons. It does not refer to bureaucratic friction in general, and is not a term in widespread use by the British.
- asynchronous 2y agoHere’s the real reason we won’t move to IPv6: NAT is used as a security feature in IPv4. World isn’t willing to do the work to make that transition.
- boredatoms 2y agoThey can use NAT on v6 if they really want to
- orangeboats 2y ago[flagged]
- meragrin_ 2y agoWrong. It's more about money. People who run ISPs have said they don't support IPv6 because they won't see any return on the cost. These ISPs use CGNAT and like to solve customer "issues" by selling them a static IP. They would sell far fewer static IPs and actually have to look into issues rather than dilly dally around a bit so the static IP "fixes" the issue. They like to blame issues on other nefarious customers causing shared IPs to be banned or something like that.
- spystath 2y agoIn a lot of cases on a residential line you can't even pay for a public and/or static v4. The option simply doesn't exist. Many ISPs just force you to buy a "business" package for 3x the cost with a bunch of other features you may not need.
- acdha 2y agoThis talking point has been debunked since the 90s. Any device capable of doing NAT can perform the even easier task of filtering packets. Even if you do decide to toss your router and connect directly to the internet it’s a lot less risky than it was in 1998 when Windows 95 didn’t have a firewall. I doubt IPv6 is going to make many people decide they want dumber gateway devices, however, since the cost differential hasn’t been meaningful for ages.
- kkfx 2y agoIPv6 have some issues, but the main reasons it's ignored is that big&powerful do not want a global per device, so they do not want people buying a domain name and then host easily their own stuff, call easily P2P anyone else and so on. That IMVHO the real reason who stop the adoption.