15 ms·
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- miyuru 6mo agocrossed 50% on Mar 28, 2026, 3 weekends back. google published the latest data only yesterday, hence the delay.
- randompartytime 6mo agowe did it, boys! despite the smoothbrain naysayers: https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffic_to_google_is_28_percent_deployment_limit https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffi... finally, the end of the dark tunnel of NAT is in sight, and the internet will be free once more
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- usui 6mo agoIt has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it. I thought I would see IPv6 take over in my lifetime as the default for platforms to build on but I can see I was wrong. Enterprise and commercial companies are literally going to hold back internet progress around 60 to 75 years because it's in their best interest to ensure users can't host services without them. Maybe even 75 years might be too optimistic? They are literally going to do everything in their power to avoid the transition, either being dragged out kicking and screaming or throwing their hands up and saying they can't support IPv6 because it costs too much. Try going IPv6-only by disabling IPv4 on your computer as a test and notice that almost nothing works except Google. End users shouldn't need to set up NAT64/6to4 tunneling. It should be ISPs doing that to prepare for the transition. Also, notice how Android and iOS don't support turning off IPv4.
- imoverclocked 6mo agoISPs often fail to do this because there is always someone in the hierarchy who says, "nobody is demanding it."
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- FridgeSeal 6mo agoI worked at a place where they refused to run it _anywhere_ because a couple of people were insistent that it was “insecure”.
- Galanwe 6mo ago... and they were right. v6 adoption is often an all or nothing, because if you run both stacks, you have to ensure they are consistent. While you can reasonably do it on your home LAN, doing it across an entire infrastructure is the worst. Now you have to make sure all your subnets, routing, VLANs, firewall rules, etc work exactly the same in two protocols that have very little in common. It is the equivalent of shipping two programs in different languages and maintaining exact feature parity between both at all times.
- kstrauser 6mo agoI genuinely don’t understand this. The concepts are nearly identical between the two.
- Galanwe 6mo agoHum no, to me they are orthogonal. v4 was built around the idea of multiple free standing networks linked by gateways. v6 was built around the idea of a universal network. I dont care about what your LAN adress space look like when I'm in my LAN, because we are not in the same v4 network. I am sovereign in my network. With v6, everyone is effectively in the same network. I have to ask my ISP for a prefix that he will rent me for money even for my LAN. If I want some freedom from said ISP prefix, I am mercifully granted the honor of managing ULA/NAT66 (granted I paid for a fancy router). Also if I want any kind of privacy, I will have to manage privacy extensions and the great invention of having to use automatically generated, dynamically routed, essentially multiple random IPs per interface. How lucky am I to use such a great new technology. Seriously v6 was created by nerds in a lab with no practical experience of what people wanted.
- UltraSane 6mo agoEvery company I have ever worked for in the US didn't use IPv6 and actually blocked it at the FW
- SuperMouse 6mo agoOur freaky network admins rolled it out in our global corpo. Was fun seeing IPv6 running for a few days without problems.
- lmm 6mo agoThe US has something like 80% of the world's IPv4 addresses, so they feel a lot less pressure to migrate.
- zokier 6mo agoUS is significantly above average in terms of adoption
- UltraSane 6mo agoI worked for a state government agency that had a public /16
- icedchai 6mo agoI’ve worked for a company that was barely using its /16. I know several individuals, including myself, with personal /24s.
- Dagger2 6mo agoNone of which are any help when connecting to someone who doesn't have those.
- icedchai 6mo agoI know, I'm just agreeing there's a ton of IP waste in the US. Early adopters were perhaps unjustly rewarded. InterNIC (before ARIN) would just about hand out IPs to anyone who could send an email.
- Animats 6mo agoIt's been amazingly linear since 2014. amazon.com needs to get with the program. Still IPv4 only.
- cubefox 6mo agoNice. But note that the average is still significantly below 50%. It's also a bit concerning that the growth rate seems to be levelling off. It currently looks like a sigmoid curve with a maximum far below 100%.
- gspr 6mo agoI wouldn't be so worried about it. It's really hard for something as big as this to really hit 100%. If we hit 80% or thereabouts, we can at least plausibly argue to backwards ISPs that IPv6 is the default and the standard that everyone should reasonably be offering. Generally: I'm really surprised that Norway is just at 27%. I think I've been with 3 different residential ISPs the last 15 years, and all of them have done IPv6 perfectly well (two nits: I think one required a trivial opt-in, and my current ISP is just giving me /60 which isn't perfect). Edit: Oops, sorry to my current ISP for shaming them. Some googling told me that one can get a /56 using DHCPv6-PD. I'll try that!
- imoverclocked 6mo agoThe question is, "what will the graph look like in the next 10 years?" I get the whole s-curve trend but if I squint at 2017, there is an inflection to slow the s-curve down. Annoyingly, when setting up service with a fiber company in the last couple months, I explicitly asked about IPv6 connectivity and they said, "yes." Turns out "yes, but not in my region."
- snvzz 6mo ago>I explicitly asked about IPv6 connectivity and they said, "yes." ABC, Always Be Closing.
- pheggs 6mo agowhile it looks like its slowing down, I am pretty sure it will speed up once IPv4 get even more expensive, sites start to be hosted on IPv6 only and become inaccessible to some users that dont have IPv4. Thats surely going to put pressure on ISPs
- snvzz 6mo agoMaybe "think of the children." There might be a child behind the NAT, thus IPv6 requirement.
- jeroenhd 6mo agoWith IPv6 privacy extensions it's impossible to tell which device you're talking to inside of a /64. You'd need to do something silly like DHCPv6 to get that kind of remote device-level tracking.
- usui 6mo agoOutside of hobbyist niche uses, sites won't start being hosted IPv6-only. The financialization of IPv4 addresses will simply get worse and be even more pay-to-play than it is now. Amazon raises the price of IPv4 and everyone goes along as a cost of doing business.
- zokier 6mo agoMy prediction is that sites will be half-IPv6 only; backends will be IPv6 and IPv4 traffic will get proxied to IPv6 by CDNs / edge LBs. I think CloudFront for example supports that scenario, avoiding IPv4 costs (in theory).
- pheggs 6mo agothat may be true, but not being able to access hobbyist sites still feels like "being locked out" of something. My ISP provides /48 IPv6 addresses for free, and I already run a couple sites only on IPv6 - because an IPv4 would cost 20 bucks a month - it's not important enough to me personally to pay that.
- 6mo ago
- rtdq 6mo agoAnd still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539 https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539
- growse 6mo agoA non-trivial minority of the time, they don't support IPv4 either!
- hsbauauvhabzb 6mo agoWhat? One nine isn’t good enough for you?
- lambda 6mo agoExcuse me. Zero nines. Or two nines if you relax your definition of where they are in the number. https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/116334321751266751 https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/116334321751266751
- bdangubic 6mo agowe shut down our production every day from 2pm till 5pm for a siesta :)
- Zancarius 6mo agoYou jest... (but probably not!) I remember when I was first using my alma mater's online sign up for classes in the very early 2000s, their class sign up site had office hours.
- AlienRobot 6mo agoExcuse me, but I see 4 nines. 95 incidents in last 90 days, 89.91% uptime.
- fogllgldl 6mo ago
- sschueller 6mo agoMy next project, IPv6 in my homelab. It will be a challenge but it is time. My ISP gives me a static /48, I should use it.
- jeroenhd 6mo agoI recommend going through Hurricane Electric's multiple-choice tests. It's not exactly a how-to guide or course, but it'll mention all of the terms and technologies you need to look up to get things right. They'll even send you a free T-shirt if you make it through all of them. The most difficult parts for a homelab in my experience is getting Docker to play nicely. All of the other stuff sort of just works these days. Even things like using DHCPv6 prefix delegation to obtain a routable subnet is almost trivial with how well-supported the protocol is with modern networking software.
- sschueller 6mo agoWhere do I find that? https://www.ipv6.he.net/ https://www.ipv6.he.net/ has an invalid certificate and is the first result on Google.
- elevendroids 6mo agoYou need to omit the "www" subdomain: https://ipv6.he.net https://ipv6.he.net
- jeroenhd 6mo agoTheir www sub-subdomain is broken it seems. https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ has instructions on how to get started.
- davidkuennen 6mo agoSetting up my own server (migrating off GCP LB) taught me so much about networking. I was especially surprised that providing IPv6 is such a performance boost for low bandwidth phones since they mostly only operate on IPv6 by now and IPv4 needs some sort of special roundtrip.
- emj 6mo agoCool! Could you give some concrete examples of apps or traffic patterns where you think IPv6 may noticeably improve performance on phones? Are you mainly referring to NAT traversal during connection setup, or to something that also affects traffic after the connection is established?
- Dagger2 6mo agoMany mobile ISPs handle v4 via NAT64 or CGNAT. Routers capable of doing those are far more expensive than regular routers, so there tends to be fewer of them. v4 traffic has to travel out of its way to reach one of those routers, whereas v6 traffic can be handed off sooner with a more direct physical path. It affects anything where latency matters, e.g. from Facebook: "We’ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15 percent faster over IPv6." (https://engineering.fb.com/2015/09/14/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/ https://engineering.fb.com/2015/09/14/networking-traffic/ipv...).
- molf 6mo agoIt's only a matter of time before laptops get 5G. Macbooks have been rumoured for a while to get cellular modems. [1] This will probably help adoption. On the one hand it will generate more IPv6 traffic. On the other hand it will expose more developers to IPv6; which will expose them to any lack of support for IPv6 within their own products. [1]: https://9to5mac.com/2025/08/14/apples-first-mac-with-5g-cellular-might-be-coming-sooner-than-we-thought/ https://9to5mac.com/2025/08/14/apples-first-mac-with-5g-cell...
- panny 6mo agoI can't imagine a worse privacy nightmare. Always on backdoored baseband in 5G with a unique permanent IPv6 address assigned to the machine. Okay, maybe it could be worse if each user account is assigned its own unique IPv6 perma-cookie.
- merpkz 6mo agoAs if people doesn't already carry always online machine in their pockets
- Dagger2 6mo agoYou're thinking of MAC addresses. Machines don't have permanently-assigned v6 addresses, rather the IP is assigned by whatever network they're currently attached to and will change based on that network's whims, just like it does in v4.
- nottorp 6mo ago> Okay, maybe it could be worse if each user account is assigned its own unique IPv6 perma-cookie. They will. One from facebook, one from google, one from tiktok, several from Palantir and its partners...
- Glemllksdf 6mo agoThats quite surprising thing to me and weirdly obvious. If you are single, have a phone contract, you would need some extra contract for a landline internet and wifi router because thats what a lot of people just do and now they can just add an esim and pay a little bit more. Interesting that this sounds/feels a lot more right or useful than it did 5 years ago.
- zokier 6mo agoThis google metric measures adoption in access networks, but at this point I feel more interesting metric is adoption in services. One such stat is here: > adoption ranging from 71% among the top 100 to 32% in the long tail https://commoncrawl.org/blog/ipv6-adoption-across-the-top-100k-web-hosts https://commoncrawl.org/blog/ipv6-adoption-across-the-top-10... Getting full coverage on AWS (/GCP/Azure) and few other key services (GitHub...) would be significant here imho.
- tonymet 6mo agogreat resource. Common crawl is a goldmine
- traderj0e 6mo agoYeah, a large portion of those ipv6 Google searches are afterwards connecting to an ipv4 host.
- orangeboats 6mo agoI doubt it honestly. Most people are connecting to sites like Youtube, Instagram etc., which do actually support IPv6. It's how I get 60~80% IPv6 traffic on my home network. A great portion of it was because of my mom watching Youtube. Even when you discount the services run by FAANG, for personal sites, Cloudflare and GitHub Pages (but surprisingly, not GitHub itself) support IPv6 and enable IPv6 support by default.
- traderj0e 6mo agoActually yeah, especially if you measure it in bandwidth, and even if you just measure it in requests
- loevborg 6mo agoSometimes TCP/IP is a leaky abstraction, and recently ipv6 peeked through in two separate instances: - In a cafe wifi, I had partial connectivity. For some reason my wifi interface had an ipv6 address but no ipv4 address. As a result, some sites worked just fine but github.com (which is, incredibly, ipv4-only) didn't - I created a ipv6-only hetzner server (because it's 2026) but ended up giving up and bought a ipv6 address because lack of ipv4 access caused too many headaches. Docker didn't work with default settings (I had to switch to host networking) and package managers fail or just hang when there's no route to the host. All of which is hard to debug and gets in your way
- pastage 6mo agoYou can solve this issue if you have one server with ipv6/ipv4 you can run NAT with Jool and connect ipv6 only servers to that. Like Android does. I wish hosting providers would give you a local routed ipv4 on ipv6 servers with a default NAT server. It is not that expensive I move 10Gbps "easily" and they could charge for that traffic.
- zokier 6mo ago> I wish hosting providers would give you a local routed ipv4 on ipv6 servers with a default NAT server. You mean like AWS NatGW https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/vpc-nat-gateway.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/vpc-nat-gat...
- crote 6mo agoThose are still per-customer and require you to dedicate an entire IP address to it. That's overkill for a server which mostly talks over ipv6 but needs to connect to an ipv4-only service like Github once in a blue moon.
- emj 6mo ago30 USD/month and 0.045 USD/GB for ingress it is ok if you are big. It is a cheap service to build yourself. I do feel the pain of it being hard to get IPv4 minimal connectivity on ipv6 only hosts, i.e. for me a 1 USD/GB would be fine.
- ymolodtsov 6mo agoBut I still have to pay Hetzner separately to rent out an IPv4.
- ruuda 6mo agoFinally https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9558/50-of-users-access-google-over-ipv6/ https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9558/50-of-users-access-... can resolve!
- anonymfus 6mo agoCurrent submission title: > IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark Graph description: > The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6 There are reasons to expect both much more and much less traffic per user on IPv6 compared to IPv4...
- purerandomness 6mo agoIPv6 will never make it. Maybe IPv8 [0], which IPv6 should have actually looked like: > 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 [0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html
- direwolf20 6mo agoWhy do people keep proposing alternatives to IPv6 that are no easier than IPv6 but still require the whole world to start the deployment over from 0%?
- josh3736 6mo agoFor observers, this draft was posted to HN earlier but quickly flagged and removed because the linked "IPv8" draft is absolute bunk. See the removed thread for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47788857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47788857
- tialaramex 6mo agoHaving read that thread, I guess one of the small upsides of the world I live in is that "FIFA Peace Prize" is now available as a joke award reference. FIFA really hit it out of the park there in a way that even their normal legendary levels of corruption couldn't imagine. Edited: In hindsight I notice that "hit it out of the park" is the wrong sport metaphor for FIFA, but I stand by it anyway.
- embedding-shape 6mo ago
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoAt home, I use an Android 16 Pixel phone, and a Chromebook, and I would suspect (but cannot prove) that 100% of my LAN outages can be blamed on the dual-stacking nature of IPv6 plus IPv4. Chris Siebenmann has written extensively on IPv6: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/?search=ipv6 https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/?search=ipv6 Google has some weird way of asserting connectivity, and I suspect that when connectivity on one protocol is lost, it is impossible to maintain or establish connectivity through the other one (IPv6) even if it is available upstream. I am rather infuriated with the status quo at this point, because it is impossible to disable IPv6 on my devices and it is also impossible for my ISP to disable IPv6 on my LAN or on the CPE router which they own and control. Due to chronic WiFi issues I was eventually forced to place my ISP router into Bridge mode permanently, and I use a 3rd party Netgear which I own, and does not have the same WiFi issues, and where IPv6 is optional (and often fails, because its implementation is buggy and glitchy for no reason.)
- direwolf20 6mo agoI am rather infuriated that it's impossible to disable IPv4 on my devices, so does that make us even?
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoYes I believe so! I recently purchased a brand-new LaserJet printer, and since it needs nothing to do with the Internet or a WAN outside my home, I thought it'd be great to simply disable IPv4 and stop doing the DHCP dance. Well it immediately fell off the net completely. I couldn't figure out how to expose its IPv6 address or contact its management interface. Hypothetically, Bonjour and mDNS should make this a no-brainer. Hypothetically, disabling IPv4 shouldn't even prevent it from connecting to the Internet. But I was ultimately forced to factory-reset it. IPv6-only LAN makes a lot of sense for most people, and perhaps reduces attack surface a little. If you have the means, I highly recommend setting it up!
- jabl 6mo agoAre any ISP's or corp intranets doing IPv6-mostly style networks yet: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-link-v6ops-6mops-00.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-link-v6ops-6mops-00.ht... That seems to be a promising approach.
- farfatched 6mo agoAccording to https://www.ipv6.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/13_IPv6-Mostly-Office_-JenLinkova_UK-IPv6-Council-2023.pdf https://www.ipv6.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/13_IPv6-M... , Google is. The author of the RFC is the author of the slides.
- ninkendo 6mo agoT-Mobile does: https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-mobile-us-goes-ipv6-only-using-464xlat/ https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-... They use 464XLAT, basically NAT64/DNS64 with some extra cooperation on the OS’s part for backwards compatibility with apps that hard-code IPv4. You get only a v6 address, and your OS basically synthesizes an v4 network on your device in cooperation with their NAT64 router. But all the bytes going from your device through to their towers are ipv6. Talking to a v4-only website uses carrier-grade NAT64 when leaving the t-mobile network.
- neojima 6mo agoAdditionally, their fixed-wireless product gives you a physical CPE that does the CLAT (NAT46) side of the 464XLAT. To the local network, it looks like there's native IPv4, but it's translated to IPv6 by the gateway, and sent to the "nearest" NAT64 PoP to be translated back and sent along its merry way.
- Mashimo 6mo agoI wonder why Germany has a relative high adoption rate with 77%? They are normally behind when it comes to new technology. Is it because they have more carrier NAT? In Denmark I can get cheap 1 / 1 Gbit/s fiber, but still no ipv6 :(
- ahartmetz 6mo agoCarrier-grade NAT for home connections is pretty rare in Germany. I only know of Deutsche Glasfaser - a fairly new ISP that isn't doing too well.
- interloxia 6mo agoVodafone cable's cgnat struggles. I went v6 for home so that at least the v6 sites and my own connections avoid the congestion.
- Dagger2 6mo agoIt's very common. German ISPs collectively went with DS-Lite, so most of that 77% with v6 have CGNATed v4.
- ahartmetz 6mo agoSomehow it's really hard to find numbers, but AFAIK at least Telekom and 1&1 don't use CGNAT for home connections, which already rules out that 77% have it.
- Dagger2 6mo agoQuestions like this suggest that 1&1 do: https://forum.openwrt.org/t/solved-dsl-over-ds-lite-with-isp-1-1-destination-port-unreachable/185517 https://forum.openwrt.org/t/solved-dsl-over-ds-lite-with-isp... I'm less sure about Telekom. For obvious reasons, it's hard to find info in English.
- ahartmetz 6mo ago
- BartjeD 6mo agoIn before the dinosaurs arrive to complain about the challenges of moving to IPv6 and why NAT and IPv4 are better. ;)
- moralestapia 6mo agoAny idea why it oscillates?
- kalleboo 6mo agoCorporate IT networks have less IPv6 and residential/mobile networks have more IPv6, so on weekdays when people are using Internet at work = more IPv4, weekends when people are using Internet at home = more IPv6. Christmas also has a big bump for the same reason.
- moralestapia 6mo agoAwesome, thanks. No change in trend during COVID years, interesting.
- Dagger2 6mo agoThere is -- you can see the weekday/weekend difference is smaller when people are working from home en masse.
- ghoshbishakh 6mo agoCountries like India have higher adoption (>70%) because of 4G/5G abundance. Legacy broadband providers hold back IPv6 usage.
- Galanwe 6mo agoEvery year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.
- blueflow 6mo agoIPv6 is IPv4 with 12 more bytes, right?
- AndrewDucker 6mo agoIPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Galanwe 6mo ago> IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4 Neither is IPv6 > To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6 The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4. I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable security risk, as I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. That would be trivial with IPv4-with-more-bytes, it's a nightmare with IPv6.
- mrsssnake 6mo agoDo NAT64 and just worry about IPv6 if not wanting dual stack. All of IPv6 features are just direct effects of having more space and not. Basically IPv6 "features" is just getting rid of IPv4 workarounds.
- vel0city 6mo ago> I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. You'd still have that in your IPv4-with-more-bytes, as you'll still probably end up running dual-stack to address those old-v4-only sites. Or you'd do the same with v6 and run a tunnel to translate those v4-only addresses to your v4-with-more-bytes. So you're in the same situation either way.
- hani1808 6mo ago[dead]
- p4bl0 6mo agoIt amuses me to see that according to the map, France is best in class or close to be, while just a few weeks ago, my ISP in France stopped providing me IPv6 connectivity… The story is that at the beginning I had IPv6, and a shared dynamic IPv4 behind a CGNAT, I asked for a rollback to a full duplex static IPv4 and for three years I had both a static personal IPv4 and an IPv6. A few weeks ago my router went down and since it went back up, I no longer have an IPv6 address. I called my ISP and they explained that I could either have IPv6 or a static IPv4, but not both, and that it's abnormal that I had both for so long… welp, it's sad to see IPv6 but getting it back is not worth abandoning my static IPv4 and going back to a dynamic shared IPv4.
- harg 6mo agoAre you with SFR? I also seem to only have a static IPv4 (I don't pay for it, but it's never changed in the lifetime of the connection). I asked for an IPv6 but they said it was not possible/difficult.
- p4bl0 6mo agoYep, with "RED by SFR" specifically.
- fossilwater 6mo agoAmong all the major French providers, SFR lags far behind its competition unfortunately
- p4bl0 6mo agoI know, but at the time I had to choose an ISP, they were the only ones with an offer with just internet (and a phone line), all others ISP forced a bundle with dozens of TV channels that I don't need along with their internet access subscription. They were also the most competitive price wise, and other than this problem (which is new for me, I had an IPv6 and a static IPv4 until a few weeks ago), I'm satisfied with the service :).
- 6mo ago
- harg 6mo agoInteresting to see Spain having such low IPv6 adoption. Perhaps that's exacerbated the issues caused there by blocking IPs during football matches that we've seen mentioned in recent HN posts.
- zokier 6mo agoSpain has one of the highest FTTx rollouts in Europe though. My theory is that they just prioritized building fiber and there was no money left for ipv6 transition.
- everdrive 6mo agoI am waiting for the flood of evangelist to explain: - IPv6 proponents are the only ones who know that NAT is not a firewall, and - Everyone in the world would love IPv6 if they just didn't hate learning new things
- jl6 6mo agoEveryone's saying progress is slow, but maybe this is just how long it takes to do massive decentralized global migrations affecting billions of people. What are we comparing against? Maybe the ICE-to-EV transition?
- nlitened 6mo agoFor example, compared to migration from 3G to 4G networks. As I understand, from the launch of 4G to complete shutdown of 3G it took around 12—14 years.
- zrail 6mo agoA reasonably fair comparison. The ISPs had a much stronger incentive to finish the migration, though, because the 3g spectrum could just get turned around and used for 4g after rollout. IPv6 doesn't really have that strong of an incentive structure now that CGNAT is a well-developed technology.
- vel0city 6mo agoOne major difference in the 3G->4G and now 4G->5G conversion was that was largely a single-party change in the end to actually implement. The client and the server hosting an application doesn't care about whether that traffic is over 3G or 4G or IP over Avian Carriers as long as the packets get there in a reasonable time. Going from IPv4 to IPv6 requires lots of very different players to all work together to make the transition, meanwhile for a carrier to go from 3G to 4G its largely on them and their direct contractors.
- easterncalculus 6mo agoWorld IPv6 Day was in 2011, so 15 years since then. This is also requiring a consumer hardware and software upgrade on both the client and server (resource they're accessing). GitHub doesn't have to implement 4G support.
- tonymet 6mo agoLatin1 to UTF8
- zeristor 6mo agoThis is the global curve, it looks to be flattening I had thought it would be more asymptotic to 100%. My company is ipv4 still, and some customers are having issues with ipv6 only connections. Also we log the ip addresses, and that's only in ipv4.
- torcete 6mo agoThey have released the draft for IPv8 two days ago: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html Does it mean we better put our chips on IPv8?
- badgersnake 6mo agoGuess you didn’t read it.
- anilakar 6mo ago15 years ago I would have dismissed this immediately as an elaborate troll but nowadays you cannot be sure anymore. I'm suggesting moving on to IPvNN which requires device and ISP forced guarantees that the originator is not under the effect nor the lack of any medication or other substance, not being coerced and not using non-human assistants in content creation.
- Dagger2 6mo agohttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-24 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-dr...
- pocksuppet 6mo ago
- zeristor 6mo agoMy interest was piqued 20 years ago, then there was talk about Internet2 with all these amazing optimisations. Things have developed so much, a Internet2 is still going on I take it, however is more focussed on university research. As ever a killer strength is something that draws people to a new technology, I imagine there's various demographics that benefit from use of ipv6. Further I imagine that there are some levels of criticality which when reached are more self sustaining (dare I say it the network effect?). I've been posting this graph over the years, and it really has slowed down hugely close to this 50%. This is a global ipv6 support, so some countries are racing ahead, others weirdly like Denmark have a stash of ipv4 addresses and seems content. France and Germany are at about 80%, but there's the rest of the world of course.
- gauravkundu 6mo agoWaiting for github to support
- ButlerianJihad 6mo agoOne of the foremost obstacles to wide adoption is that IPv4 still works great and it's ubiquitous. There is no advantage or up-side to deprecating or abandoning IPv4 support at all. The only result of disabling IPv4 is a denial of service to a certain sector of customers or clients. The only way this will change is by increasing pressure on the resource of IPv4 networks. It was a few years ago that AWS broke the news to me that I'd be paying for IPv4 addresses but IPv6 would remain free. If enough services are forced, financially, to abandon an IPv4 presence, then their clients would be likewise forced to adopt IPv6 in order to retain connectivity. But with the ubiquity of CGNAT and other technologies, it seems unrealistic that IPv4 will become so rare that it becomes prohibitively expensive, or must be widely abandoned. So that availability of the legacy protocol will inhibit widespread adoption and transitions to IPv6.
- ifwinterco 6mo agoIn theory you can save quite a bit on AWS costs by having instances that can only use v6. But in reality at the moment there will probably always be at least one thing that only works with v4 a lot of the time. Incentives are misaligned as well - it saves you money as the EC2 instance user, but the owner of the website you're trying to access has to support v4 anyway so they don't have a big incentive to change anything
- netheril96 6mo agoMaybe it's time to tax IPv4 usages or holders.
- kalleboo 6mo agoYeah the reality is that the Internet is centralized now. There is no reason for two computers on the internet to connect to each other anymore, as long as you can reach Google/Microsoft/Amazon/CloudFlare, that's all anyone needs. Just log onto AOL and type in keyword "WALMART" and save! It's friendly and safe.
- menotyou 6mo agoCurrently my IPS provides IPv6, but I set up my firewall in the access router of my home LAN to block all IPv6 in both directions. - I don't want to have a permanent global unchanged ipv6 as in id of my traffic. - IPv6 privacy extensions would change that but then I can not reach my two devices I do want to reach from outside anymore as my access router only supports DynDNS for its own address and no NAT in IPv6
- fleetfox 6mo agoAnd how exactly is your NATed ipv4 address better? This seems backwards.
- menotyou 6mo agoRouter has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT port forwarding to the reverse proxy. So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions? I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.
- Dagger2 6mo agoPrivacy extensions are additional addresses that are used by default for outbound connections. You still have the non-privacy address, which doesn't change; put that one into DNS. This approach prevents outbound connections from leaking the address needed to connect to your servers. On v4, it's likely that any outbound connection from your network gives the server the IP they need to do that.
- spl757 6mo ago90% spam/hack?
- spl757 6mo agoSounds like it's time to abandon it for something new and more stupid
- keybits 6mo agoTailscale have a great FAQ about IPv4 vs IPv6: https://tailscale.com/docs/reference/faq/ipv6 https://tailscale.com/docs/reference/faq/ipv6 If you're not an expert in this area it's worth a read - I certainly learned a few things!
- rmunn 6mo agoThat was excellent, thanks for recommending it. I particularly liked how it's a pretty factual FAQ, not particularly cheerleading for IPv6 nor saying "IPv6 is a failure, give up on it".
- menotyou 6mo ago"IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP), the successor to IPv4." This is a misconception. It is not the successor to IPv4, it is an alternative. Maybe the alternative is so good it will eventually make the older extinct, but it does not look like that
- Galanwe 6mo agoI agree with you. While I can see some benefits to v6 on the internet, I find v4 to be miles easier and cleaner to work with in a LAN setup. Unfortunately though v6 oversteps on LAN features and makes bridging v4 and v6 way uglier than it should.
- cassianoleal 6mo ago> v6 oversteps on LAN features and makes bridging v4 and v6 way uglier than it should How so?
- connicpu 6mo agoRegardless of whatever other things may be better or worse about ipv6, it's still a reality that as we continue connecting more and more devices to the internet eventually ipv4 addresses will become so scarce and valuable that a not-insignificant minority of residential customers will be behind such aggressive CGNAT that the internet will become nearly unusable unless a majority of the services they are using support ipv6.
- pjf 6mo agoNB: this is not "IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark" but "availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users", which is a very important difference. This means roughly half of Google users have IPv6 capability, which does not 1:1 correspond how much traffic is actually transferred over IPv6, which is what this submission says in the title.
- kalleboo 6mo agoIt also means you're excluding China, who has has it as a long-term priority to deploy IPv6 and have made huge strides.
- usui 6mo agoYeah and this distinction explains the fact that because China's Great Firewall blocks Google, this website shows 4.66% adoption as a reflection of that. I think China's IPv6 support rate is actually much higher than that, maybe a little over 50% because of its central initiative to increase IPv6 adoption? EDIT: Apparently it's 77% https://pulse.internetsociety.org/en/news/2026/01/china-hits-865m-ipv6-users/ https://pulse.internetsociety.org/en/news/2026/01/china-hits...
- School-Cotton 6mo agoWouldn’t it be close? AFAIK modern network libraries on modern OSs default to IPv6 when available.
- easterncalculus 6mo agoRight, but in most situations clients will prefer IPv6 if its available, so if they have access, they almost always are using it, at the very least from their local network.
- ianburrell 6mo ago"The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." How would Google know what users have the potential for IPv6 if they are not using it?
- pzo 6mo agoI wish EU make it mandatory at least for all ISP to make mandatory support for IPv6 by end of this decade. I think that would push the needle even globally.
- ffaser5gxlsll 6mo agoMeanwhile: one of the major mobile network in my country announced cisco collab/ipv6 ~5 years ago, but still doesn't provide v6, just v4 CGNAT. Personal web server running dual stack since early 2010s currently sees 18-20% v6 traffic. When split by type, counting only mobile users it reaches 30% at peak. Bot/crawler traffic is ironically 100% v4. Meanwhile: enabled h3 in september last year for the fun of it, instantly at >40% traffic by request count, passing 50% since the beginning of the year, h2 accounting almost all the remaining traffic and plain ssl/http requests <1% being just bots.
- e-topy 6mo agoMaybe the best anti-scraper/LLM protection is going IPv6 only. I'd do that on my website, but I'm afraid some clients might not connect.
- colmmacc 6mo agoIf GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks. This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update policies pro-actively. And customers hate it when things suddenly break no matter how well you go about it. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizations/keeping-your-organization-secure/managing-security-settings-for-your-organization/managing-allowed-ip-addresses-for-your-organization https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat...
- alibarber 6mo agoHaving been messing around personally with getting my own blocks of IP addresses and routing[1] - I've become terrified at the idea of implementing access control based on IP address. Unless your own organisation in the RR has the IP addresses assigned to you as Provider Independent resources, there just seems to be so many places where 'your' IP address could, albeit most likely accidentally, become not yours any more. And even then, just like domain names, stop renewing the registration and someone else will get them - I was that someone else recently... [1] AS202858
- yosamino 6mo agoOh, cool! that's on my bucket list as well. I am still grappling with some concepts, though. Do you have a writeup of your setup somewhere or can you recommend some learning materials ?
- alibarber 6mo agoIt's fun and has now become an addictive rabbit hole - trying to get packets from one location to the other in the fastest, most direct way (and at hobbyist budget level). Initial writeup based on IPv6: https://abarber.com/Setting-Up-ASN-IPv6-Routing-BIRD-Teltonika-Router-Wireguard/ https://abarber.com/Setting-Up-ASN-IPv6-Routing-BIRD-Teltoni... Have been having fun recently with an IPv4 block and Asynchronous routing, working on writing that up right now :)
- rmunn 6mo agoZoom in on that graph using the controls at the bottom, and you'll see a repeating pattern of crests and troughs, weekly. There's about a 5% difference between the crests and the troughs: the crests are hitting the 50% line or just below it, and the troughs are down around 45%. The real question is, why are the crests so predictable? They're always on Saturdays; Sunday dips down a little below the crest, then Monday-Friday is down in the 45% range before the next Saturday jumps up to 50% again. (Fridays usually have a small rise, up to the 46-47% area). My theory: mobile access rises on weekends. People are more often accessing Google services from their work computers Monday-Friday, but on Saturdays and Sundays most (not all) people are away from the office. Many of them will end up using smartphones rather than laptops for Internet access, for various reasons such as being outdoors. And since smartphones are nearly all using IPv6 these days, that means an uptick in IPv6 usage over the weekends.
- kalleboo 6mo agoIt's not just mobile networking but residential ISPs in general have better IPv6 support. In the US, Comcast was one of the first big IPv6 deployments, in Europe CGNAT+IPv6 is common in many places. Meanwhile corporate IT for business and education networks have less incentive to upgrade and typically lag behind in adoption in general.
- crest 6mo agoI've been running full dual stack for >15 years now. It has become second nature by now and I'm slowly testing IPv6 mostly, but so far it's just easier to deliver dual-stack to all users instead of dealing with workarounds to make the last few non-IPv6 capable services work without native IPv4.
- Xirdus 6mo agoResidential vs. business. If the graph was hourly and per country, you'd see the same rise every morning and drop every evening (likely by more than 5pp).
- rmunn 6mo ago
- jwilliams 6mo agoI'm surprised it's reporting is listed <5% - I thought it was pretty much ipv6 first?
- neitsab 6mo agoAs a French national, I am surprised to discover we are topping the charts according to this analysis. Does anybody know why that might be the case? What's the story of IPv6 deployment in France?
- DANmode 6mo agoTechnical literacy, hacker culture, and culture of well-considered infrastructure, have been French characteristics - at least, historically. Has something changed for the worse?
- ankit_mishra 6mo agoI'm wondering the same thing for India. Not the top but looks surprisingly surprisingly high. Perhaps I'm reading the data wrong.
- ggm 6mo agoReliance Jio deployed cheap native v6 and tool massive market share. They single-handedly moved the market. It's been discussed on the apnic blog and at meetings heaps
- toast0 6mo agoAdding on. Jio was a late entrant, so they could not get significant ipv4 address space without great expense. They deployed as mostly v6 with a tiny CGNAT. They also had an extensive 'pre-release' offering at zero cost to subscribers which got them a huge number of subscribers and clout to encourage internet services to offer ipv6.
- lazide 6mo agoIndia has about 1.5 billion people, and has only recently been getting most of them online. Less IPv4 legacy, and it has always been obvious that IPv4 was never going to be ‘enough’ to actually onboard everyone anyway. When I lived in India, everything had IPv6 out of the box.
- timpera 6mo ago
- cubefox 6mo agoSpain: 9.9% What's going on in Spain?
- ggm 6mo agoBizarrely, Telefonica doesn't see a need. But, their subsidiaries in LatAM do heaps! And, they do central purchasing.
- Schlagbohrer 6mo agoCan someone reconcile for me the constant chatter about how IPv6 isn't getting impemented, versus this result that more than half of all traffic (as measured by google) is now IPv6? It sounds to me like its a tool which is available to be used when needed and when no better workarounds exist, and it is slowly but surely being adopted as needed.
- zokier 6mo agoMost of the chatter comes from the peanut gallery who have no real insight on what ISPs and other large networks are actually doing.
- neojima 6mo agoThis. "Vibes," vs. data.
- toast0 6mo agoAs a sometimes chatterer, it's a mix of complaining about the annoying changes in v6 that weren't just lengthening the address fields, pointing out that the migration is taking forever, and implying a less disruptive design could have rolled out faster. For a long time, there really was next to no progress. Between the introduction in 1996 and about 2011, there was very little adoption. And since 2012 when pushing really started, we're at about 50% globally, with large variance by country and network type. 15 years between creation and real deployment seems like a lot, and 15 years of deployment getting to 50% also seems likes a lot. But wikipedia says touch tone dialing was first offered to consumers in the 1960s and didn't become majority until the 1980s, so maybe 30 years isn't that slow.
- jcalvinowens 6mo agoI consistently get 100x as many captchas from google over V6 as over V4, on many different networks: it is obnoxious and obviously broken on their end.
- traderj0e 6mo agoIP reputation is a tough problem with a lot of establishment behind v4. Even if they were to build up v6 reputation, since v6 addresses are cheaper, wouldn't they have lower rep?
- jcalvinowens 6mo agoThe "reputation" concept has to be applied to network blocks in IPv6, because of privacy addresses, and they very clearly aren't doing that for whatever reason. I get at least one captcha a day from a stock Android phone that's been connecting from the same damn /64 for almost a whole year.
- traderj0e 6mo agoBut there are way more /64s than /32s. They could apply it to /32s in ipv6, but then customers would share rep unless ISPs lease out /32s instead. Unfortunately gotta pay to play.
- jcalvinowens 6mo agoThat could never work, my entire ISP is a /32
- traderj0e 6mo agoI'm guessing because the spec defines a network as a /64. Couldn't the ISP buy more space if they wanted to?
- hosh 6mo agoI am in the middle of building infrastructure in GCP. The workload is your typical stateless web + db workload. As of now, there is no way to have a 100% internal ipv6. Many of the services, including CloudSQL or the connection between external and internal load balancers do not support ipv6, even when the external load balancer support ipv6 forwarding rules at the front end. This means that careful internal ipv4 allocations still matter.
- kalleboo 6mo agoI had the same issue a few months ago on AWS. All I want is a server (that pulls a container), a database, and a load balancer. It's all going behind CloudFront so there should be no need to pay for an IPv4 address for any internal machine. Couldn't do it. Since then I saw that there was some movement on IPv6 for RDS but IIRC there was still some other blocker.
- vel0city 6mo ago> so there should be no need to pay for an IPv4 address for any internal machine At what level did you need to pay for IPv4 addresses in this stack? You should have been able to make this work with a private IPv4 space, have the ECS services be dual-stack and be on both the v6 network and the v4 network to talk to the database server, have the ALB be v6, and then have Cloudfront be v6. If you wanted, you could also just ignore v6 for the ECS services and have them just live in that same v4 subnet entirely. I could be wrong (and please tell me what I'm missing) but you shouldn't have had to pay for IPv4 in this case. I do just wish RDS (and so much else) would just support IPv6 though, you shouldn't need to have a bunch of extra subnets just to talk to your database.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- dijit 6mo agoI think its incredibly ironic actually. The place where IPs are burned through rapidly (internal) is forced to use v4. (and, potentially even a subset of it, RFC1918; likely conflicting with some large company or service if they decide to plumb it together later- or you burn publicly accessible IPs in the limited address space) But the one interface that touches the internet can use v6: the one with a functionally infinite address space.
- Ekaros 6mo agoThere really should have been proper government pressure and fines long ago. Say if you have 10% of market share or x million monthly users you must support IPv6 in say 5 years. If not you are fined say 2% revenue per year until you do...
- bluGill 6mo agoI'd make it required that ipv6 for all customers has a higher service guarentee than anyone ipv4. If you don't support ipv6 you can't guarentee anything. give two years to to implement it.
- equinox6380 6mo agoThe failure wasn't in the technical design of v6, but in the economic assumption. When the cost of migration exceeds the cost of 'hacks' like NAT, people will stick to the hacks for as long as humanly possible.
- zsoltkacsandi 6mo agoGreat, then another 20 years and we can retire IPv4.
- Bender 6mo agoNot the one down-voting you but I suspect IPv4 and IPv6 will run side-by-side dual-stack at least until 2050 and IPv4 would not be fully deprecated until probably 2323 star-date 0 as future quantum interstellar communications subspace will deprecate both standards. Only half kidding as nothing ever gets deprecated or decommissioned until it breaks something important.
- taf2 6mo agoJust in time for ipv8 - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html
- spockz 6mo agoAnd in the mean time, Odido on the Netherlands still don’t support ipv6 on their fiber network…
- shrubble 6mo agoI am aware of at least 2 telecoms, one publicly traded, that have very little to no IPv6 in their core networks and only use IPv6 when they have to. Personally I think the design of IPv6 offers very little benefit; supposedly the Dept of Defense/Dept of War holds some 175 million IPv4 addresses, with other companies also holding large allocations - that should have been addressed 25-30 years ago as an administrative matter.
- mattstir 6mo agoTo what end though? 4 billion addresses is not enough on its own, even if they were reallocated from hoarders. I think that NAT and especially CGNAT have been very detrimental to the shape of the internet, where it's nearly impossible to self-host a public service without a VPN of some kind. Needing to pay some company for the ability to host a server that isn't behind NAT is a barrier that doesn't need to exist when IPv6 has a nearly limitless number of addresses.
- bananamogul 6mo agoYou're not wrong, but practically speaking, hosting a VM is so cheap and comes with the advantage of serving from a datacenter that I would never want to host anything off my residential connection anyway. The $1 to $5 a month to have excellent, reliable connectivity (that no residential connection provides), DDoS protection, and isn't tied to my home IP outweighs any home hosting benefit in my experience.
- jcranmer 6mo agoThere are 16 /8's in the class E address space that were never allocated, and 19 /8's (by my count) allocated to individual companies. If you waved a wand and returned all of that space to IANA for allocation, you would have staved off IPv4 address exhaustion by... about 3 years.
- neojima 6mo ago2.7 - 4.0 years, by my math, so I would agree with your assessment. ...but that's based on pre-IANA-runout rates, though, and doesn't account for the pent-up backpressure of demand. So probably a lot less, in reality. Not even remotely worth the effort, even if there were a legal pretext for "reclaiming" IPv4 space (there isn't; there's already precedent denying it).
- benbristow 6mo agoAnd Virgin Media in the UK still doesn't support IPv6
- KronisLV 6mo agoRandom test site for the consumer side: https://test-ipv6.com/ https://test-ipv6.com/ 0/10 in Latvia with a local ISP, fun times.
- TekMol 6mo agoI still do not support IPv6 on my servers and I think I will skip it and wait for IPv8: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html Avoiding a dual-stack and making IPv4 a part of whatever superseeds it seems like the right choice to me. IPv6 always seemed to me like throwing away all existing telephone numbers, just to support longer numbers.
- Dagger2 6mo ago::203.0.113.42 (tunnels to 203.0.113.42 over v4) 64:ff9b::203.0.113.42 (translates to v4 at nearest NAT64 point) ::ffff:203.0.113.42 (opens a v4 connection via an AF_INET6 socket) What are these then?
- abhinavk 6mo agoMaybe you didn't read the draft. It's either a delayed April's Fool joke or AI slop. Even if you take it seriously, it will require updating every v4 device in existence.
- pbw 6mo agoThis is only 33 years after I took a networking class and learned all about IPv6 and the IPv4 address space crisis.
- neojima 6mo agoThis is pretty remarkable, given that RFC 1883 is only 30 years old.
- schneems 6mo agoPuma 8.0+ webserver now defaults to IPv6
- tormeh 6mo agoAs long as no significant websites are IPv6-only qnd no significant user base is IPv6-only, why would anyone join IPv6? What proponents could do is make their websites IPv6-only. The IETF website, for instance, should be IPv6-only.
- mgulick 6mo agoI get an IPv6 address from my ISP (a /56 I believe), but I wish there was some good information on how to update my OpenWRT VLAN configuration, routing, and firewall rules to be able to support native IPv6 on my devices. Would love to be able to have direct IPv6 connections to the internet from my devices, but I want to make sure I can do it safely.
- _bernd 6mo agoYou only need to set nothing and it should setup ipv6 on all downstream vlan interfaces. For static prefix I'd you can set ip6hint per vlan interface. For each vlan interface you need a stanza in the DHCP config file. And regarding firewall, as with the default lan zone you might need to add new zones with the vlan interfaces and configure forwarding rules. That's it.
- nzeid 6mo agoThis was surprisingly complicated for me on Altice/Optimum, which is why my home didn't have IPv6 for a while even after they started provisioning. We actually have a /128 address only, and had to tweak several settings including enabling IPv6 masquerading (NAT). I haven't the slightest clue why they didn't give us a block.
- dlcarrier 6mo agoYeah, I'm in the same boat. I like the idea of being able to remotely connect to anything on my network, but I know just enough about networking to be dangerous, and don't trust my self to set it up securely, so I have IPv6 disabled on my router. With IPv4, it's physically impossible to mess up the firewall and NAT settings enough to make local devices public.
- Dagger2 6mo agoIt's honestly not that hard. Tell your router to reject new inbound connections from the WAN interface, and you're done. You have to do the exact same thing to make sure inbound connections aren't possible on v4 (even with NAT in the picture), so you might well have already done this or got it from the default ruleset. Plus it's trivial to test, by attempting to connect from another network.
- pmarreck 6mo agoGood. I think most of us know that their design failure here was a lack of backwards compatibility. But at least it's getting adopted.
- neojima 6mo agoBackward compatibility was never really the problem; the problem is that forward compatibility with ANY successor protocol (without modifying IPv4) is a fundamental impossibility. But at least a reasonable facsimile eventually came out with NAT64. (You can also do NAT46, but it requires one IPv4 address for every IPv6 destination you want to be reachable from the IPv4 Internet, so it doesn't scale very well.)
- johnhamlin 6mo agoI was wondering why someone proposed IPv8
- Leomuck 6mo agoWhat I have asked myself the last few months: I've read about IPv4 becoming sparce a few years ago. I haven't read much about it lately. And I've thought maybe the advance of cloud computing and load balancer kind of mitigated the issue of sparce IP4?
- neojima 6mo agoIt officially started becoming scarce in 2011, when IANA, and then APNIC, depleted their IPv4 "free" pools, FWIW. Things have only gotten worse from there. Cloud computing doesn't mitigate IPv4 issues, it just moves it around. The big cloud providers buy up any IPv4 space they can, leaving less for everyone else. The difference is that they then get to collect rent, by the hour, on any IPs their customers use. Load balancers...yeah, actually that is a valid approach to reduce IPv4 use, assuming you mean the "reverse proxy" variety of load balancer. Cloudflare's proxy service is doing exactly this, on a pretty huge scale. (CLoudflare can then send the traffic on to an IPv6-only server, regardless of the client's protocol.) The downside is, like cloud, consolidating a lot of infrastructure into the hands of a small number of companies.
- Anonyneko 6mo agoAnd yet I still haven't ever connected to an internet provider that supports IPv6, across two countries I spend time in...
- 1970-01-01 6mo agoA hidden benefit is it's no longer possible to have another "we typed the wrong IP address" raid story. IPv6 is larger than the total number of heartbeats of all heart-bearing life that has ever existed. You either nailed the abuse address or you're raiding something that doesn't even exist.
- whalesalad 6mo agomeanwhile I just disabled ipv6 on all my vm's last night due to ubuntu package servers being down and needing to get something critical out the door.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- bethekidyouwant 6mo agoThe final 10% is gonna be a doozy..
- marginalx 6mo agoIs most of that due to mobile? The real migration challenges are in the server side/consumer home internet space which I'm not sure if there are clear stats around the adoption there. I think IPV6 is a great example of over engineering, trying to do too much in one iteration. In an ideal scenario this could work, but in the context of large scale change with no single responsible party, it usually doesn't work well.
- zokier 6mo agoCloudFlare Radar has stats for desktop (34%) vs mobile (46%) adoption: https://radar.cloudflare.com/explorer?dataSet=http&groupBy=ip_version&filters=deviceType%253DDesktop%252CbotClass%253DLikely_Human https://radar.cloudflare.com/explorer?dataSet=http&groupBy=i...
- jollyllama 6mo agoI was wondering how much is "last mile" between end-user devices and the next hop vs. within cloud networks, but the bit about mobile is a good point.
- azernik 6mo agoThe problem has nothing to do with over engineering, or really anything to do with the actual contents of the IPv6 standard. It is just devilishly hard to make any backwards-incompatible change to layer 3, and address expansion is always going to be backwards incompatible.
- mrjoe3332 6mo agoThere were some choices of v6 that made it extra hard, like declaring all v4 addresses no longer valid in v6, or making slaac default
- azernik 6mo agoIPv4 addresses are in fact a subspace of IPv6 (that's NAT64). They were not by fiat declared invalid. The actual thing I think you're complaining about - the necessity for NAT64 at all - is unavoidable, because you need a NAT/protocol-translation layer for packets to actually move between the new address space and the old one. SLAAC-by-default is not, in my experience implementing IT automation, an actual barrier for adopters. You have a router sending out RS instead of a DHCP server, to an admin this is not a meaningful change.
- grimmai143 6mo agoIt’s amazing to see this finally hit 50%. Out of curiosity for the infrastructure folks here: are you actually running IPv6 inside your internal VPCs and Kubernetes clusters now, or are you still mostly just terminating it at the edge/load balancer level?
- starkeeper 6mo agoIt's all bots!!!
- ff317 6mo agoRandom related data point: for HTTP requests to Wikipedia (and related) for the past 7d, the IP protocol split is roughly 35% IPv6 / 65% IPv4. (this is counting by-request, so heavy usage from a small number of IPv4s can skew it).
- sedatk 6mo ago> heavy usage from a small number of IPv4s Basically, all crawlers.
- 10000truths 6mo agoIf be curious to see what the IPv4/IPv6 breakdown looks like when looking at HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 connections only, which should exclude the vast majority of crawlers.
- himata4113 6mo agoIf anyone is confused on adoption is so slow when supporting it is easier than ever the reason is actually quite simple: it's expensive. Switches and routers have a little thing called TCAM memory, the premise behind it is that it allows you to single-cycle O(1) lookup any ips destination. Usually to replicate it you could have a 4gb*2 preallocated contiguous buffer, but that's not something that is wildly supported or used and this completely breaks down when you expand to the IPv6 range. The problem lies in that in a lot of cases TCAM can no longer hold the entire IPv4 routing table and now if you introduce IPv6 you are expected to handle double the routes which degrades switching performance as more active routes have to be evicted and fall back to software routing. Routes are not the only thing that take up TCAM memory: the firewall rules, internal routing, vlans, everything becomes double and TCAM memory cannot be dynamically adjusted at runtime to allocate space so what happens is that you need to sacrifice IPv4 space in TCAM permenantly even if nobody is using IPv6. This is where it gets worse: if you have ever attempted to use IPv6 you will notice that is significantly slower than IPv4 and that is because most ISPs simply opted to use software routing for IPv6 which coupled with 4-10 hops is nearly double the latency in some cases (0.5ms to 1ms) while having throttled bandwidth to not overload the CPU. That's why network engineers will continue to refuse to (properly) support IPv6. If I had to guess the "properly" supported IPv6 percentage is less than 10%.
- crest 6mo agoWhat shitty ISP operates like that? I frequently see IPv6 have *lower* latency because of fewer middle boxes and fewer hops in general. Your routers in the default free zone shouldn't be close to their TCAM limits with a single IPv4 routing table.
- kalleboo 6mo ago> if you have ever attempted to use IPv6 you will notice that is significantly slower than IPv4 The link in the OP shows that IPv6 typically gives users 10-20ms lower latency. This confers with my experience since IPv4 is typically going through some poor overloaded CGNAT box.
- ck2 6mo agoforgive dumb question but what happens when someone on IPv6 without IPv4 tunnel visits a URL with only a IPv4 endpoint? like say * https://1.1.1.1/cdn-cgi/trace https://1.1.1.1/cdn-cgi/trace vs * https://one.one.one.one/cdn-cgi/trace https://one.one.one.one/cdn-cgi/trace When ipv6 threads like this come up, someone eventually mentions T-Mobile is completely IPv6 now but they must have IPv4 tunnels because I have IPv4 turned off on my modem/router and can still visit both those URLS
- mike_mx 6mo agoNot dumb. It's not exactly a tunnel, it's a double sided conversion. Basically to reach any v4-only resource you need a translator, typically NAT64. This maps the entirety of the v4 internet into a /96 of IPv6 space (last 32 bits). DNS64 is one way to access this, which will return a result for 'amazon.com' like: A = `98.87.170.74` AAAA = `64:ff9b::6257:aa4a` Combining this with CLAT lets you punch in an IPv4 literal like 1.1.1.1 and your phone/computer will do this conversion from v4 -> v6 locally without you changing anything. So 1.1.1.1 would become `64:ff9b::101:101` on-device - and that's actually what your mobile ISP sees. T-Mobile and most mobile operators use 464XLAT - which has been in Android & iOS for at least 8-10 years now if memory serves. It lets you visit 1.1.1.1 because your phone is converting it automatically to T-Mobile's NAT64 prefix (CLAT - customer side), it traverses their network v6-only, and then it ends up at their translator (PLAT - provider side) and becomes normal NAT'ed v4 traffic out to CloudFlare.
- nfriedly 6mo agoI just recently noticed that my ISP, Frontier, quietly turned on IPv6. I know it wasn't enabled back in December, so it has to have been sometime in the past few months.
- thescriptkiddie 6mo agointerestingly my ISP, at&t, quietly turned off ipv6. not sure exactly when it happened, i should get around to complaining about it but i hate making phone calls
- blueybingo 6mo agoworth noting that the google stat measures ipv6 availability among users who access google, not general internet traffic -- so it's a bit of a self-selecting sample skewed toward consumer isps that have deployed ipv6, which probaly overstates adoption for enterprise and datacenter traffic where the github situation is much more representative of reality.
- ryzvonusef 6mo agoQuick, someone tell slashdot!
- artooro 6mo agoBeen waiting for this for years! Now I just wish my local ISP (rural Canada) supported it.
- JTbane 6mo agoIt seems the biggest hurdle to IPv6 adoption is legacy software and hardware. Anything new that gets built can easily be v6 only.
- markhahn 6mo agoI guess most of this is mobile use in India.
- linzhangrun 6mo ago[flagged]
- mmwelt 6mo agoAnother reference is Cloudflare's metrics, which show IPv6 at more like 40%, excluding bot traffic. [1] https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6 https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6
- pixel_popping 6mo agoThe title is wrong, it's not "IPv6 traffic", just who has IPv6 enabled.
- Dagger2 6mo agoEnabled and actively using it to connect to servers that have v6. Though yes, this is tracking by session rather than by packet or byte.