16 ms·
Google Hits 50% IPv6
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- b112 4mo agoAnd 32% is all llm/bots using AWS and other "pay for ipv4 IP" use cases.
- benjojo12 4mo agoAs someone on the fighting end of scrapers, this is absolutely not true. If anything I should bais towards v6 as the traffic is on par better than v4
- Sesse__ 4mo agoJust remove the A record, and nearly all the scrapers disappear. :-) (And then you get one email per month or so that “your host does not resolve in DNS”.)
- b112 4mo agoGoogle is having a real issue with LLMs using it for search. As in, real load issues. Unless you're running a publicly accessible search engine, and the top one at that, the LLM traffic you're seeing is not representative.
- jcgl 4mo agoCitation needed. These numbers are quite consistent with the growth pattern that started well before usable LLMs were even a thing.
- jeroenhd 4mo agoEvery scraper I have blocked seemed to use IPv4 primarily. Only when IPv4 gets blocked, some of them fall back to IPv6. Others just stay dead. With AI companies using botnets ("residential proxies") for scraping, they're probably going to be in the 50% that doesn't use IPv6.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoI wonder if there will ever come a day when IPv6 will provide a better web experience than IPv4. At the moment pretty much every website is reachable via IPv4 but a lot not via IPv6. Will there be a day when this turns around?
- mritzmann 4mo ago> a better web experience than IPv4 That's already the case. IPv6 is often faster because most ISPs these days use cgnat for IPv4.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoTrue but not deploying any IPv4 connectivity would be a worse experience than not deploying IPv6.
- mort96 4mo agoThat fraction of a millisecond doesn't meaningfully translate into a better experience for users.
- kalleboo 4mo agoYou're assuming the ISP has dimensioned their CGNAT properly and it's not congested.
- Hendrikto 4mo agoMilliseconds matter for gaming, for example.
- hdgvhicv 4mo agoVast majority of people gaming are doing it via wifi
- commandersaki 4mo agoWe are still talking a fraction of a millisecond, a few hundred microseconds at most. People are blowing out of proportion latency saved with v6, it's negligible at best, or at worst let's not forget IPv6 is two separate island because two tier-1 carriers refuse to peer (Cogent & HE).
- PacificSpecific 4mo agoFirst thing I do on a fresh Linux install is set ipv6 to deactivated. Fixes all my initial Linux install problems. I don't question it, it just works every time.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoSomething is very wrong with your network then. I never needed to disable IPv6. Maybe you should question it.
- PacificSpecific 4mo agoFair enough. I do question it often. It's a standard Asus router but it's given me a lot of ire. I hate to say it but it's never a problem when I install windows on the same machines (I'm currently in the process of trying to completely remove windows from my life)
- CrLf 4mo agoThere are maybe many buggy routers still out there that reset the IPv6 flow label field when they shouldn't, breaking hash-based load-balancers (the symptom is TCP connections spontaneously reset). IIRC, a workaround was to prevent Linux from setting this field, or force-reset it on every outbound packet using netfilter.
- drewfax 4mo agoSimilar experience. I bought an ASUS router and enabled IPv6. It slowed down everything down. Immediately flashed OpenWrt on it, IPv6 works like charm. It's usually bad configuration done by the router vendors. It doesn't mean IPv6 is bad.
- PacificSpecific 3mo agoThanks for the info! I'll look into openwrt
- 4mo ago
- Cider9986 4mo agoHow does IPV6 affect ip blocking. As a VPN user I wish it wasn't used as a metric for sites shaking you down.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoI assume for aggressive blocking the only prefix size will change. What is a /32 for IPv4 might become a /64 or smaller for IPv6.
- hdgvhicv 4mo agoLarger. A /56 and get multiple hits from nearby /56s and you block the /48.
- mahboi 3mo agoShouldn't blocking v6 also be based on /32 if you want the attacker's cost to be the same?
- BadBadJellyBean 3mo agoWell in the IPv4 world /32 would be a single IP or what a residential connection usually gets. With IPv6 you have 128 bits for the whole IP and usually a residential connection get get between a /64 to /48 prefix. Going above a /64 might hit other unrelated customers. Going to a /128 prefix would only block a single IP but since we started doing privacy extensions your computer will have multiple IPv6 addresses with a short lifetime which means that the user will be able to connect again soon after you block them. There are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs in a single /64 prefix so it would be useless to block every single one of them. A more reasonable approach might be to block a /64 first, monitor if you get more blocks within the /56 block that contains the /64 and maybe block that.
- lxgr 4mo agoIt's just as easy or hard to map out a VPN's egress subnets on v6 than it is on v4.
- MYEUHD 4mo agoThread from two months ago (626 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777894
- dang 3mo agoThanks! Macroexpanded: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47777894 - April 2026 (621 comments) --- Other recent threads, if anyone would like a thousand more IPv6 comments: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47821429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47821429 - April 2026 (166 comments) IPv6 is the only way forward - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680124 - April 2026 (339 comments) IPv6 Adoption in 2026 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47083086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47083086 - Feb 2026 (21 comments) IPv6 is not insecure because it lacks a NAT - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46696303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46696303 - Jan 2026 (577 comments)
- coldstartops 4mo agoGoogle hits 50% IPv6, very good for accessing websites. But my TP-Link router blocks by default inbound IPv6 connections, without any option to configure it, still bad for pure IPv6 bidirectional streaming, gaming or services on home networks.
- jmyeet 4mo agoAll these systems are a reflection of the time that they were designed. IPv6 is 30 years old. At that time a lot of threats just didn't exist. One of my favorite is the decision to default to /64 blocks. There was a time when the designers believed that you'd use your 48 bit MAC address as part of this. Now we know that's a PII nightmare and nobody does it. Yet we're still stuck with the 128 bit addresses that came from that. To your point, IPv6 sought to replace NAT with just having enough addresses but interestingly, that created a problem. If you used NAT and had a service on your computer request a port for incoming connections, that showed intent on behalf of the owner of that service. IPv6 doesn't have that intent, which forces home router makers do block addresses by default because you don't want most PCs on the Internet such that an external agent can scan your PC. You may end up with an unintended service on the open Internet. So is the bigger address range better? Technically, maybe? But you have to consider defaults and intents of users. And that can take a good technical solution to a bad solution or at least create a whole bunch of problems.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoI don't think this is inherently a problem. It's good for home routers to have sensible defaults. Blocking incoming IPv6 connections is such a thing. Opening a port in the firewall shows the same kind of intent as forwarding a port with NAT. The burden is on the router manufacturers to expose these options in a sensible way. My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port for IPv6. Using NAT as a firewall might work but it brings it's own problems. I find the IPv6 way better.
- lxgr 4mo ago> I don't think this is inherently a problem. [...] My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port for IPv6. Glad to hear that you don't have a problem with your router, but how does that relate to GPs problems with theirs?
- skywhopper 4mo agoI’ve yet to live anywhere where the available mainstream ISPs were willing or able to provide IPv6 service. I’d be happy to use it, if I were able. I also have built cloud infrastructure for multiple SaaS providers with tens of thousands of customers over the past decade. Only one customer I’m aware of has ever even requested IPv6 support. And if customers aren’t asking for it, my employers have never been interested in the full network re-architecture required to truly support it internally. There are still several basic services you can’t run IPv6-only in AWS, and a handful of AWS service features that don’t support it at all. As a sysadmin for decades now, I’ve always found IPv6 to be overengineered and in many ways completely ridiculous. But I’d love to be supporting it in everything I do. Only I still can’t, even after 20+ years of being lectured about it; even after complete IPv4 exhaustion has been reached. I don’t think we’re ever going to turn IPv4 off. At best it will be progressively hidden, even from technical users. And folks like me will just have to keep building workarounds to patch the holes where IPv6 still doesn’t work.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoI'm interested, apart from the chicken egg problem, what are things that you found bad about IPv6. What do you think is overengineered? I personally found that the features I interacted with were useful (SLAAC, address size, router advertisements, ...) and the changes made it cleaner (removal of broadcast for multicast, removal of fragmentation fields, ...).
- tormeh 4mo ago> apart from the chicken egg problem "But other than that, Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?"
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoI am more interested in the technical perspective than the deployment perspective.
- gucci-on-fleek 4mo ago
- ThePhysicist 4mo agoNoooo, my /22 IPv4 subnet allocation is my personal 401k, I need this money to retire.
- mimsee 4mo agoTime to cash in?
- scandox 4mo agoAbout 2023 I think
- hdgvhicv 4mo agoPrices have been coming down for years in nominal terms, let alone real terms. Cg nat does everything that’s needed, there are no significant ip6 only services, there are plenty of ip4 only services, so you have to support ip4 anyway, so why bother with ip6 My company has just turned off all ip6 connectivity for its corporate laptops because it’s considered a security risk. I disagree, but I do agree that having 4 and 6 is a higher risk than 4 alone or 6 alone, and 6 alone sadly still doesn’t work reliably. All the “promise” of ip6, direct connections etc, were lost when stateful firewalls became required and memory became cheaper than $20 a megabyte. Some bespoke old protocols don’t like ports changing, which can be a problem, but it’s a very small number and easier to work around with modern protocols than support a dual stack environment securely for the majority of places that struggle securing a single stack.
- inigyou 4mo agoEverything that's needed besides letting computers talk to each other, that is. With ipv4 you have a two tier internet. Computers talk to servers, servers talk to servers, computers can't talk to computers so every video call must be routed through a server.
- ikari_pl 4mo agoAnd wasn't that THE POINT of the internet and it's decentralised design?
- rvba 4mo agoGreat example of how fixing things "the correct way" does not seem to work sometimes. They added those new addresses that can store more information.. but this requires a rewrite of old software to make it work. If they used the old >bolting on top< method by extending ip4 from 4 octets to 8 (or more) octets, then old software could be extended much easier too / probably addresses could be simply mechanically translated too, so ancient software can work.
- noduerme 4mo agoI never heard this idea before, but more octets would be a lot prettier!!
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoThey added 12 more octets. I mean we could have written IPv6 addresses in the old format but I don't think that 42.0.20.80.64.1.192.15.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.113 is easier to remember than 2a00:1450:4001:c0f::71 (or 2a00:1450:4001:0c0f:0000:0000:0000:0071)
- rvba 4mo agoTell that via phone to your grandmother.
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoWhy would I do that?
- mahboi 3mo agoExactly, it'd be horrible. They picked the right format for v6. The problem isn't the space size, it's the entropy. V6 addrs are randomly spread, but if you were using the most significant bytes first, you could have something like 42.0.20.80.64.
- Hendrikto 4mo agoYou have not heard if before, because that is the most naive and stupid take imaginable. It is the “let them eat cake” of networking. It does not work like that. Put extra octets where exactly? Where would a hardware router put the extra bytes? Where would software with 32 bit buffers? You would still need to replace all of the software and hardware and have the exact same problem.
- spockz 4mo agoMeanwhile T-Mobile/Odido in the Netherlands is still not supporting IPv6 despite promising to have been working on it for years. Ubiquity gateways also seem to not support it sadly. It would be awesome if they supported something like Hurricane Electric’s tunneling.
- kuschku 4mo agoHuh? Ubiquity has dropped support? I can't believe that, even the older EdgeRouter series supported it.
- mkj 4mo agoOld Nanostations as a client need to do proxy arp or something, which doesn't handle ipv6. That said it's probably 15 year old hardware. I ended up using a wireguard tunnel across it instead.
- mtucker502 4mo agoThey support it. I have it enabled with Spectrum. No file modification necessary; all configurable from the UI.
- jon-wood 4mo ago$ curl -v https://news.ycombinator.com * Host news.ycombinator.com:443 was resolved. * IPv6: 2606:7100:1:67::26 * IPv4: 209.216.230.207 * Trying [2606:7100:1:67::26]:443... * ALPN: curl offers h2,http/1.1 * TLSv1.3 (OUT), TLS handshake, Client hello (1): Works fine through a Ubiquiti gateway here.
- kay_o 4mo agoIt is entertaining that the situation becomes opposite in T-Mobile on States does not support IPv4 and only assigns IPv6 with 464xlat for "Fake-NAT" to IPv4.
- newsclues 4mo agohttps://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/36378535649687-Configuring-IPv6-in-UniFi https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articles/36378535649687-Configu...
- jdw64 4mo agoI made my homepage (www.makonea.com) support IPv6 too, but the number of people actually using it is much smaller than I expected. Is IPv6 really that widely used? I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. Sometimes, when behind Cloudflare, I think even if someone connects via IPv6, it ends up coming through as IPv4
- BadBadJellyBean 4mo agoIt's good to support it to resolve the chicken egg problem. If no service supports it, there is no sense in deploying it to the customers and the other way around. Also you made the life better of people who have DS lite. They only get a public IPv6 and all their IPv4 traffic goes through a CGNAT.
- reddalo 4mo agoFor people like me: DS Lite stands for "IPv6 dual-stack lite". My mind went directly to Nintendo and I was confused.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- fc417fc802 4mo agoFor client server web browsing what's the downside of CGNAT? I'd understand if we were talking about self hosting a service from home but for typical consumer usage?
- gucci-on-fleek 4mo ago1. Peer-to-peer networking won't usually work correctly. And quite a bit of software uses P2P networking these days---BitTorrent, Zoom/Teams (via WebRTC), Tailscale, PlayStation/Xbox multiplayer, etc. Most of these services have automatic fallbacks when P2P networking doesn't work, but these fallbacks are usually slower and less reliable. 2. Most websites assume that 1 IPv4 address==1 household, so you'll often run into rate limits. Or even worse, you might be blocked entirely if your CGNAT neighbours are spammers or otherwise breaking website rules.
- xyst 4mo agoTook them long enough. Now if only Google would follow with their own services. Sure Gmail has ipv6 enabled and routable ip6 MX. but sending to those addresses is often rejected and forced to retry over ipv4. Don’t get me started on gh
- mmwelt 4mo agoInteresting to see the per-country rates[1]. France is up to 85%, apparently! [1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...
- Leonard_of_Q 4mo agoThe more mobile traffic, the more IPv6. Have a look at India, it is not as if everyone has a fibre connection running IPv6.
- lloeki 4mo agoWell, France has 99% IPv6 deployment through both mobile and landline these days https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/ipv6/Arcep_2025_Barometer_of_the_Transition_to_IPv6.pdf https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/ipv6/Arc... (2025, from 2024 data) Reason that Google isn't seeing more is a) some BigCo v4 holdouts b) happy eyeballs sometimes landing on v4 because their v6 is shitty 6rd or something (e.g Free SAS)
- BrandoElFollito 4mo agoYou mean that Free's ipv6 is not implemented correctly?
- well_ackshually 4mo agoFree has ipv6 enabled on 100% of their customers, and while sometimes their software has a few issues, it's working perfectly fine. People just get pissy because Free refuses to pay for peering with Google for e.g. Youtube, and it feels slower, even more on v6. The only ISP not putting out v6 widely is SFR, and thankfully they've gone bankrupt and we will be rid of this scourge.
- inigyou 3mo ago[dead]
- shevy-java 4mo agoI want Google gone. This company is causing too many problems. I am still sometimes using Google Search. First results are now almost always videos on youtube, aka self-promo. These videos are in 99.9% of the search results I use, totally useless and worthless. Even searching on youtube has recently gotten worse. It is also crap now. I know that because I bookmark various videos, and I can not find older videos anymore either. I can eliminate some results I don't care via ublock origin hero-blocking this Google garbage, but I really think we should no longer allow this de-facto monopoly to worsen the global situation any longer. The USA is protecting these gangsters - it is time to have true legislation that gets rid of that mafia bloc that is Google.
- CrLf 4mo agoCloudflare sees over 40%, and it hasn't gone up in the last year even with the overall traffic increase. Personally, as the APNIC article also says about their own observations, I guess the overall adoption is somewhere in between. https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6 https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage#ipv4-vs-ipv6 But we have to remember that this reflects the adoption on the client side. With many high profile services still IPv4-only, the fraction of IPv6 flowing on the public Internet might be much lower. I wonder what incentives are needed to push this forward, because it's not the same incentives as years ago for sure. We've long since exhausted new IPv4 allocations.
- kalleboo 3mo agoIf we're looking at the portion of traffic, most of the big bandwidth heavy services (the video streaming sites and CDNs) are on IPv6, the long tail of IPv4-only services tend to be lower bandwidth stuff.
- Fabricio20 3mo agoI believe one big anti-incentive is rate limiting, especially nowadays. With IPv4 getting a range ban is somewhat effective, way less effective on ipv6 (theres a reason HE tunnelbroker is marked bad nowadays, discord bots doing music load balance over ips on tunnelbroker for pulling youtube audio data.. they ban a /64 but you balance over a /48 or bigger). I believe this was the main reason Discord disabled IPv6 (not sure if thats still the case, but it was back in the day since bans and api rate limiting was ip based).
- Dagger2 3mo agoWhy is it less effective on v6? You just ban the /48 or bigger.
- will4274 3mo agoIt's difficult for servers to know how big client allocations are. With v4, pretty much everybody got /32s, but with v6, sizes vary. So you've got to start with small bans, and then switch to big bans later, but not too aggressively so you don't accidentally ban legitimate customers. It's a tricky balance.
- charcircuit 4mo agoIn America I've never had a non-mobile ISP offer IPv6. At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration. IPv6 will never reach the 100% needed to turn off IPv4.
- theandrewbailey 3mo agoI've had IPv6 addresses on Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon FIOS.
- lxgr 4mo agoAnd I've only ever had v6, both on DOCSIS and fiber. Both observations are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things; actual adoption rates are what matter. > At this point it would be best to recognize the sunk cost and give up on the migration. That's a pretty wild thing to say in the comment section of an article about v6 reaching 50% eyeballs-side deployment.
- hdgvhicv 4mo agoAfter 30 years, with 99% of servers and devices having been designed decades after ip6 was created, half of traffic is still ip4. If that’s not a failure I hate to see what is.
- throw0101a 4mo ago> If that’s not a failure I hate to see what is. How would several billion smartphones be able to connect to the Internet without IPv6? There isn't enough RFC 1918 (or 100.64.0.0/10) space for IPv4-only to be practical: Comcast—not even mobile—went to IPv6 because running their TR-069 management over multiple 10/8 became untenable. IPv6 is making all sorts of things possible without most people realizing it.
- hdgvhicv 4mo agoThose phones are reaching half the internet via 64 gateways, no difference to reaching via 44 gateways.
- brador 4mo ago2026. Literally no reason to be using this outdated limited addressing. New regex: IP(any collection of numbers and dots). Now we have infinite IP address possibilities and no one controls the space. Done.
- inigyou 4mo agoWhat does a packet header look like?
- mahboi 3mo agoNeed an IP address and a prompt explaining to Claude how to parse it
- codingdave 4mo agoDo you think routers perform their work using the human-readable addresses? If so, that is incorrect. They use the binary values. The actual difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is that IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, not 32. So you can devise whatever human-readable abstraction you like, it won't change how networking actually operates.
- brador 4mo agoAnd there’s no reason we should be limited to 128. It’s all just so dated and stagnant. Chips can be made that dwarf that limitation, instead we’re stuck with this decade old nonsense to “work around” again. Flip flopping between “the code needs it” and “the chips need it”.
- rkcr7 4mo ago[dead]
- throw0101a 4mo agoSpecifically on weekends, which seems to indicate that it's the corporate/business network side of things that is not bothering with implementing it.
- Scroll_Swe 4mo agoYou frame "not bothering" as if its a checkbox with "enable IPv6" to check and all done... Put all work into reorg, for what? Some numbers to change? Why when IPv4 works?
- calgoo 4mo agoThe corporate world tend to be easy to do, just put a gateway to IPv6 on their zScaler (or similar) exit points and done. However, that is not really needed as they are "only" consuming a few IPs around the world (for that purpose). No one in the corporate world wants to go back to the days of Public IPs on all devices. Internally the enterprises have no reason to switch as it just complicates their setups.
- katbyte 3mo agoI wouldn’t want a public ip for all the devices and computers on my home network either. Seems like a huge security risk.
- throw0101a 3mo ago> I wouldn’t want a public ip for all the devices and computers on my home network either. Seems like a huge security risk. The real security risk is thinking that just because you have an internal RFC 1918 address space your security has improved. It's been a decade+ since a firewall being considered a castle/moat of security being best practice. Any IT person that thinks that if they see a device with an 10/8 (or 172.16/12 or 192.168/16) IP and think you're safe you should be fired: it's lazy thinking. At least if you had a GUA address it would force you to pay more attention to the rest of your security controls. Just recently a co-worker retired some systems that were accessible to the outside via DNAT—but forget to clean up the firewall rules. So he then—for some fucking stupid reason—decided to re-use those same IPs, even though we had so many fucking other IPs available, and one of the boxes got compromised because it happened to have a simple, guessable password on the initial image install.
- JdeBP 4mo agoJust to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network to ensure that all customers have a smooth and simple transition when the time comes to flick the switch and turn IPv6 on. We're really pleased with how our tests are advancing and are happy to say that by the end of 2012, we'll be able to fully support customers looking to switch to IPv6. has not managed to actually flick that switch in 15 years. * https://ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/06/08/uk-isp-fluidata-hails-world-ipv6-day-and-points-toward-the-benefits-of-adoption.html https://ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/06/08/uk-isp-fluidata-hai...
- jonathantf2 4mo agoPurely from a business perspective, for VM there is no point. They have more than enough v4 to keep them going, customers (outside of a tiny technical minority who probably wouldn't chose VM anyway) do not see any benefit. That plus other ISPs v6 implementations breaking things randomly, I understand why they don't bother.
- Hizonner 4mo agoRight. Which is why this is not a choice businesses should be allowed to make.
- post-it 4mo agoOf all the things to regulate why bother with this one? It's not like IPv6 is better for the environment or useful to the consumer.
- inigyou 3mo agoIt reduces the monopolization power of big cloud providers. This is especially relevant to countries that aren't the US, because it reduces reliance on the US. It also just reduces resource waste (of labor time). Countries like China that have insufficient IPv4 addresses and political power have mandated it. One IP per home is manageable, for now, but CGNAT is really bad.
- axus 4mo agoWhen I set up a "pure" (not really) IPv6 server, was surprised that Github does not support it. Without the voluntary operations listed at https://nat64.xyz/ https://nat64.xyz/ , they'd be unreachable from IPv6.
- dapperdrake 4mo agoAnd the Internet routes around a problem, yet again. Good example of the 2020s on why there is practically truly only one Internet instead of many.
- boredatoms 3mo agoGithub’s lack of v6 is completely unforgivable
- jessinra98 4mo ago> Is IPv6 really that widely used? Mobile carriers use it almost exclusively, which is already a huge chunk of the internet, and newer ISPs are switching to it too.
- zadikian 3mo agoAlmost all mobile carriers use v6, but not exclusively. They also hand out a v4 to every customer. The v6-only part is their internal network.
- commandersaki 4mo agoStill not fit for purpose.
- hugodan 3mo agoIn Portugal one of the biggest ISPs (NOS) still does not have IPv6
- CrLf 3mo agoThat's not exactly true, they've been increasing in the last few months and are close to 30% now. Let's hope they don't revert it like one year ago. This graph even shows them doing step deployments: https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage/as2860?dateRange=52w#ipv4-vs-ipv6 https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage/as2860?dateR...
- adithyassekhar 4mo agoWhenever I turn on ipv6 on my router (isp supports it, dual stack) randomly I get half the download speeds, YouTube video freezes, and eventually a captcha screen on google. The moment I disable v6 even only at the client side I get to max out my bandwidth. Tested on google drive, sites on azure and aws and netflix’s fast.com which show’s your ip just to confirm I was connecting over v6.
- mahboi 3mo agoMaybe your ISP is really tunneling v6 over v4?
- adithyassekhar 3mo agoNo the server is getting an ipv6 address and verified on those test sites. This seems bad routing.
- tsouth2 4mo ago[flagged]
- bilsbie 4mo agoIt’s weird we’re all still behind NATs. IPv6 was supposed to be trillions of devices all having their own ip.
- inigyou 3mo agoOn IPv6 we're not. Are you saying it's weird we still use IPv4 in addition?
- sherburt3 3mo agoLiterally all we had to do was add a byte to IPv4 and we'd be done but noooo we need to overengineer the next protocol and make it as painful as possible to adopt.
- inigyou 3mo agoWhy one byte? Is that enough bytes? An extra 4 bits each for source and destination? Maxing out at 2^36 addresses? That seems uncomfortably small safety margin.
- sherburt3 3mo agoI was saying adding a byte to the address so its a 40 bit address which would be two bytes to the header. Obviously it would still have the same issue where hardware and software would be incompatible and would need to be replaced but the same concepts that worked in IPv4 would work in my fake protocol instead of IPv6 where the network needs to be redesigned from the ground up. Also IPv6 addresses are ugly
- inigyou 3mo agoHow sure are you that 40 bits is a good number of bits? What's your justification? It takes over 30 years to deploy new bits, so you have to be really sure before you start that effort.
- ck2 3mo agois it because some cellphone carriers are now completely ipv6 externally like t-mobile?
- radiator 3mo agoAll the projects I have ever worked on, the internal networks always were IPv4. Maybe because it is much simpler for humans to have an overview of the internal subnets in that way. Maybe IPv6 uses numbers that are too large for us.
- kccqzy 3mo agoThe IPv6 addresses on my internal network look like fd7a::1, fd7a::2, etc. They are shorter than v4 addresses.
- Jerry2 3mo agoFTA: >Individual economies such as India, Viet Nam, and Saudi Arabia exhibit adoption curves that differ markedly from the global average. As the APNIC Labs data shows, this global trend does not necessarily reflect the experience of individual economies. >APNIC’s own measurement records a 42% worldwide IPv6 capability (Figure 2). That’s a substantial difference, which also needs clarifying." The nuance is that IPv6 is growing faster in developing countries with poorer economies. I'm guessing this is because building modern IPv6 network from scratch is cheaper & more efficient than acquiring scarce and expensive IPv4 addresses. This is a major advantage for newer providers in growing economies. So while the Google is showing it at 50%, APNIC's weighted global measurement shows it at 42%.
- wolvoleo 3mo agoI have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia. I wish they had just made an IPv5 though. With e.g. 6 bytes instead of 4. 65535 times the current internet should be plenty. I feel like IPv6 is overengineered and I'm glad it didn't take off yet. I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. If I ever do switch it on on my home network I'll probably use NAT on the router so I can still keep it exclusively IPv4 internally on the network. I first learned about IPv6 when I was studying (1993) and I already felt like it was an overengineered monstrosity back then. They were campaigning like it would be the internet next year. Well that aged well, lol. That's now 33 years ago. I truly think that if they had made it simpler and more IPv4 compatible we would have been moved over in 2-3 years. But no they had to keep supporting this thing. Well, at this point I'm going to avoid playing ball as long as I can.
- eddd-ddde 3mo ago> I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. This is even easier with IPv6. At work we have a bunch of test devices, and you calculate the IPv6 from the device's serial number. Simple as that, no memorization at all.
- wolvoleo 3mo agoBut for an IPv4 device I only have to remember one number :) And nothing to do with a long random serial number.
- lambdaone 3mo ago<prefix>::1, <prefix>::2, <prefix>::3, <prefix>::4... exactly how hard can that be? Or if you're feeling playful, <prefix>::b0d, <prefix>::bed, <prefix>::dad, <prefix>::b1d...
- wolvoleo 3mo agoThe prefix is too long and it's not the same at every site. When I'm at a different location, the biggest problem is usually figuring out if they use 192.168.0 or 192.168.1 :)
- agnishom 3mo agoFinally some good news in 2026
- tulio_ribeiro 3mo agoCloudflare shows a 59/41 split: https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage?dateStart=2026-05-20&dateEnd=2026-06-21 https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage?dateStart=20... HE shows 41% ASNs support v6: https://ipv6.he.net/ https://ipv6.he.net/
- j16sdiz 3mo agoThe real question is -- how much of them are bot traffic? We knew bot traffic is more than half of the internet, right?
- Dagger2 3mo agoIf my firewall logs are representative, about 2%.
- whatever1 3mo agoI would love to stop paying AWS for public ipv4 addresses. But simply it is impossible to go full ipv6, as many of isps of the clients do not support it. Currently there is no pressure to the isps to move to ipv6. In fact the incentives are OPPOSITE! They love charging for static IPs.
- budoso 3mo agoTo be fair if Google stopped supporting it that’d be a pretty good incentive for the ISPs to get in line.
- whatever1 3mo agoThat is a great idea actually. It would be awesome to be implemented like 2-3 years ago. Now I don't think it will work at global scale, since the world looks for any excuse to move away from American influence.
- tgma 3mo agoIs this a failure? Absolutely. The article tries to brush this off, but there is no denying it. Operating without an IPv4 stack is not going to happen with v6.
- Dagger2 3mo agoI have no v4 on this machine. I'd disable the v4 stack on it if that was a thing Linux could do, but as it stands it's just sitting there doing nothing. The thing you're claiming is not going to happen is something I'm already doing.
- tgma 3mo agoI was talking about internet at large. You, and many clients, are of course able to do it on your box, but to use the whole internet, you will at some point hit a translation point which uses v4. The point is the internet at large is never going to reach a point where there won't be two internets; at this point it is pretty clear v6-only will not be a thing with the current set of technologies before a future protocol supersedes one or both.
- Dagger2 3mo agoThere were always expected to be v4 hosts on the Internet effectively indefinitely. That's not a failure condition for v6. "There are a couple of v4-only hosts out there somewhere" would be kind of irrelevant if most ISPs stop bothering to provide v4 service.
- tgma 3mo agoIt won't be just a couple. That's the point. The curve is at 50% after an astonishingly long time and is already flattening.
- birb07 3mo agoGlobally, it’s 50%, but local French (>85%) businesses could already go IPv6-only and force others to adopt it
- decorner 3mo agoWhen your router ships with IPv6 default on, this makes sense
- anonymouscaller 3mo agohttps://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html I've never seen this chart before, was taking a peek from the link in the article. Does anyone with networking knowledge know why IPv6 usage peaks on Saturdays and dips during the middle of the week? (something related to mobile ISPs?)
- Dagger2 3mo agoPeople are at work during the week, and work networks have a lower average deployment of v6 then home networks do. As evidence, you can also see the impact of holidays and COVID-19 lockdowns on the size of the dips.
- tonymet 3mo agoit’s safe to say that we will never see total adoption, not within 2 generations. We will taper around 65% at best. Think about the migration plan, and nearly every positive force to move to ipv6 has been exhausted. Routing hardware, consumer hardware, server hardware & software all have the capability. Mobile deployments were a big driver of ipv6, and that didn’t reach the level of adoption expected. Now hosting providers are charging for ipv4 addresses, and it’s not having a measurable impact. Most migrations start to hit the hockey stick well before this stage, and the taper occurs around 95%+ when outlier hardware or legacy devices are the last remnants. We are not seeing a pattern like that here.
- Animats 3mo agoIPv6 adoption has been increasing linearly for about 15 years now. Growth rate is about 3% - 4% a year, not compounded. Some long infrastructure transitions: - Railroad freight car bearings. First roller bearing freight cars, 1948 ("Roller Freight!"). Roller bearings mandatory for car interchange between railoads, 1994. - 100 VDC power distribution. Started in the 19th century, still widespread in the 1950s in older cities. Grand Central Station finally got rid of the last DC circuits, other than subway traction power, in the 1990s. (Grand Central had everything - 120 VDC, 60Hz AC, 40Hz AC, 25Hz AC, 600VDC, and a basement full of rotary converters.) Transitions that should have happened by now: - Europe is still using those crappy buffer and chain freight car couplers. Everybody knows they're crap, but the Eurocoupler initiative of the 1970s failed and the Digital Automatic Coupler is still slogging towards implementation.
- HackerThemAll 3mo agoFrance over 85%, Germany 75%, and on the other side of the scale Italy 20%, Poland and Turkey 18%, Spain 11%, former Yugoslavia bloc from 0 to at most 9. Slovenia at 7.5%...