Major Mobile US Networks Pass 50% IPv6 Threshold for IPv6-Enabled Hosts | Hacker News Reader

Major Mobile US Networks Pass 50% IPv6 Threshold for IPv6-Enabled Hosts

worldipv6launch.org

122 pointsokket53 comments

Unless I'm misreading the confusingly-worded press announcement, this is 50% of traffic to IPv6-enabled hosts. Big difference.

I think you misread the announcement. To me it reads that >50% of the total traffic is now coming via IPv6 from IPv6-capable content providers ('FaceTubeFlix').

I'm not sure the distinction is likely to matter. A small number of sites which account for a significant chunk of all traffic, and many of those sites are compatible with non-legacy internet protocols.

In any case, that is kindof the important number, as it reflects the availability of IPv6 connectivity on end user devices, so it's the revelant number for deciding when you can drop IPv4 on the server. Once it's high enough, we can start removing all the IPv4 cruft--it doesn't really matter whether other sites are still running on v4-only.

IPv6 enabled hosts include Google and Facebook, so I'd guess that's a lot of traffic.

and netflix

My understanding was that Netflix was 100% AWS, and AWS' implementation of IPv6 was very limited and pretty much to the ELB only.

But other parts of AWS are often not public facing anyway.

Yup. I was about to arc up with an Amazon AWS rant until I read that almost-last-sentence. Headline is misleading, article doesn't ever really clarify, just throws that hint in at the end...

(I've got precisely zero mobile apps in the AppStore or Google Play that use IPv6 to talk to their backends...)

Ok, we've attempted to make the title more accurate, and also changed the URL from http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160821_ipv6_now_dominant_pro..., which points to this.

Submitters: the HN guidelines ask you to submit original sources. When it's obvious that one post is simply a copy of another, please submit that one instead.

Don't think their numbers are right.

I manage 3 different sites with AAAA and A records.

site 1: tech site: 12% of the traffic is via IPv6

site 2: mixed/funny site: 7% is IPv6

site 3: company site: 9% is IPv6

I asked around a few friends and all of them with IPv6-enabled sites have around 5-15% of their traffic via IPv6.

Even Google sees 14%:

https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Can't believe this 50% number.

Those are world-wide numbers. Google reports 30% for the US: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-....

Thanks, mis-read it.

Yes, it's quite different in different countries.

My web server gets only 3,9% IPv6 traffic (based on counting unique IPs). Quite OK given that none of the major ISPs in my country offer IPv6 (neither on broadband or on mobile). Even for businesses it can be hard to get native IPv6 here.

The numbers are right. If you want to compare to your own data you need to filter for users from the big four US mobile providers like mentioned in the post.

Ah, good point. Thanks for the info.

Unfortunately, amazingly, Android still does not support DHCPv6 so that you can take advantage of it. http://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-...

is this even an issue? dnsmasq(which most routers use) for example supports both.

Yes, it's an issue. My router cannot assign an IPv6 address to my phone if my phone can't ask for one.

If you really want IPv6 to work, enable SLAAC.

How are you getting DNS configuration (server + search domain) via SLAAC?

With the RDNSS + DNSSL options for Router Advertisement (RFC standard since 2010), described here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106#section-5

If you know a RA implementation that does not support this, please tell.

Or IPv4 DHCP, if you're not IPv6-only.

You might not want to rely on a soon to be declared historic protocol for essential network configuration...

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-sunset4-v4historic-...

(This draft will probably expire, but shots are fired)

Edit: Here is a PDF that describes what deprecating IPv4 means

http://ipv6.sa/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IPv4_historic.pdf

well, at least as recently as Windows 8.1[1], windows was on that list and microsoft said to use DHCP for that (which has always bugged me as it's yet another protocol to support).

Have things changed? I haven't checked on win 10.

[1] https://www.ernw.de/download/ERNW_Whitepaper_IPv6_RAs_RDNSS_...

DHCPv6 is just a secondary mechanism with IPV6 though, meant primarily for networks where the IT dept does fancy things with DHCP and want to keep doing it with IPv6.

So if I grab a SIM card from T-Mobile or AT&T and put it in my iPhone, will I actually get an IPv6 address? What about Verizon and Sprint? This is actually a valid use case for me as a way to access stuff at home while I am remote.

For a single datapoint, my iPhone 6 running iOS 10 on AT&T does not seem to get an IPv6 address (it does on my home network, but not on AT&T LTE).

In my experience, for Verizon around the DC area, yes.

Yes. But since too many sites still are only reachable via IPv4, you either get also an IPv4 address (dual stack) or you get connectivity via NAT64/DNS64. The latter case means your phone cannot be reached from the outside via IPv4 (this is rarely needed on a phone, except when tethering a laptop, maybe).

I am well aware of all that. I have been deploying IPv6 sites for a while now. I was more curious if there was any movement towards mobile devices getting IPv6. I am stuck with AT&T for a month longer or so and so I was wondering which carries actually support what I need. Last I checked AT&T did not, but that was over a year ago.

VZW gives you an ipv6 address. I actually use a USB stick + vzw SIM for a backup internet connection via pfsense and it works well - ipv6 included.

I have seen IPv6 addresses allocated to some ATT UEs. Not sure what was the percentage. Go here from the handset and check again? http://test-ipv6.com

My VZW phone has been IPv6 primarily for at least 3 years. (Portland OR market, 4G LTE) Edit: To clarify, the phone also has IPv4, but starts with IPv6 and falls back.

Now if only I could get Comcast Business to support IPv6

Comcast business supports ipv6 at least where i am, both for static and dynamic ips.

Only barely. I supposedly get a /56 up here in Seattle, but prefix delegation will give me a /60 half the time and a "/59" half the time. The latter completely breaks every router I've thrown at it (pfsense, Cisco ASA, and tomatoUSB), and even with a supposedly-open support ticket I cannot get ahold of a Comcast Engineer for love nor money.

I've tried Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Verizon and T-Mobile give my phone IPv6 addresses while AT&T is IPv4 only. Only Verizon gives my tethered devices IPv6 addresses.

I believe I have received a IPv6 address from a tethered LG G3 with T-Mobile. Have not tested with a tethered iPhone or paid attention in a while.

My AT&T iPhone gets a v4 address when I'm using my cellular data - but when I use my AT&T DSL connection, I get v6.

Too bad AWS, Azure and Google Cloud have patchy to zero IPv6 support.

I have a ipv6 only vlan/SSID at home, pretty much nothing works outside of ipv6.google.com without nat64/dns64.

It actually seems like its getting worse since world ipv6 day. www.bing.com literally turned it on for one day, then turned it off. Smaller sites seem to have left it on, but then forgotten that fact and over time more and more of them seem to have fallen offline/etc.

Then there are all the 1/2 ass implementations. My router is ipv6 enabled (edgeOS), but that means you get a GUI for configuring/viewing ipv4, and a command line for ipv6. My ISP has a 1 IP rule, even though they claim dual stack support, I can get either IPV6 or IPV4, not both simultaneously (even though the ipv6 is a block of IPs). Ugh...

Who is your ISP?

> I have a ipv6 only vlan/SSID at home, pretty much nothing works outside of ipv6.google.com without nat64/dns64.

Facebook, Youtube and Netflix should work via IPv6 without NAT64/DNS64.

One major source of problems with IPv6 is Path MTU Discovery, which is mandatory but can easily be sabotaged by filtering ICMPv6 packets. So if you use something advanced like an Edgerouter, make sure that you do not shoot yourself in the foot with it, it is very easy (I know from experience).

Consumer routers like AirPort Express from Apple or similar do the right thing by default. They should also have (the AP Express has) options to filter inbound connection attempts, to get the good old 'protected by NAT' feeling back.

That's a bit hard to believe - the "1 IP rule" applied that way is absurd ... I feel for you

It's definitely getting worse.

Internode are one of the only residential ISPs in Australia offering IPv6. They got bought by iiNet who still haven't deployed IPv6, who then got bought by TPG who are far more likely to put their entire customer base behind a single IP/CGNAT.

I follow the EdgeMAX product line beta forums and IPv6 support in the GUI is something that is highly requested and is currently being worked on (unfortunately fairly slowly though).

This is a real issue, it may work if you buy an extra of their load balancer and enable v6 on them. Otherwise it's really moving slow on that front. I don't want to say that you should go to other providers either with niche features (e.g. Rackspace or whatever) the big three really outmatches all others in stability.

50% of all traffic to the dual stack hosts are going via IPv6. That's expected as most dual stack clients favour IPv6 over IPv4.

Why are wireline providers still lagging with supporting it?

Because lack of demand and because v4 NAT still works.

Other reasons may vary from company to company. Sometimes, because first experiments with v6 were failures (users reported connectivity issues - remote systems weren't working well, but it's ISP who gets the blame). And sometimes because proper v6 deployment takes a significant effort even if a company's lucky that the existing software was written with some v6 support in mind.

Most users don't even know what "IP address" actually is (they know the words and, in best case, that it's some numbers), not that it has "versions" or anything.

I believe mobile carriers need v6, as they have way too many always-connected devices on the network. Cable companies have more breathing space in this regard.

Source: used to work in a small(er) FTTH ISP company, and still keep in touch with them on some occasions.

> Because lack of demand and because v4 NAT still works.

In a sense it's catch 22. To increase demand, ISPs should support IPv6. Otherwise everyone is forced to support IPv4 for their sites and services, and why would users demand ISPs to support IPv6 if sites and services work anyway?...

The problem is, NAT doesn't work. I.e. it kind of works, but it's a huge pain and cost to support for anyone who has to deal with it (from development standpoint). In essence, it's a monstrosity which only magnifies the problem by delaying the global switch.

So essentially in order to solve this, everyone should be putting an effort into enabling IPv6, and if someone waits for others to demand it, they are harming the whole transition.

Mobile subscribers are a younger customer base with new (and shorter lifetime) devices.

Also the customers are often veteran PC users whose idea of sensible networking setup is a badly run "home intranet", plus maybe port forwarding for a device or two on their NAT box. They likely outnumber customers who appreciate end-to-end security, treating the network untrusted, global addressing etc.

So is it the Year of IPv6 yet?

I've been hearing about this going mainstream for 13 years. I've been setting up servers to be dual homed with both IPv4 and IPv6 for years but so many people/companies don't even bother adding the IPv6 addresses as AAAA records in their DNS even when the servers support it.

But it's here. Exciting!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com