Wait, OnHub doesn't support IPv6?! That's inexcusable. There's no reason IPv6 couldn't "just work" too. Google Wifi had better support IPv6 at launch.
Since the OnHub only comes with Ethernet you'd have to put something between it and the wire anyways of course, but it then has to be more than a dumb modem, and you'd be forcing all traffic through the tunnel.
IPv6 isn't without problems, but many people use it without noticing, through consumer devices way cheaper than this. The ones complaining the most are the enthusiasts which suddenly can't reach their home server via IPv4 anymore.
Yet another device Google will sell, and then discontinue in 24-36 months.
You don't know that.
I've been burned, and I refuse to purchase yet another Google device for a market they're just testing the waters in. I'd rather spend my money with someone who needs it to support their product, and that product is their business.
Chrome devices have 5 years of updates guaranteed. I have a cr-48 from 2010 which still gets updates (currently on -dev 56). How many times has there been a story on HN about RCEs unpatched for months or years in consumer routing gear? The fact that you purchased that hardware doesn't seem to be sufficient incentive based on the record. But when you have an incentive of a secure and performant internet, and also have the talent, infrastructure, and existing codebase to make something work and work well, you have economies of scope that make supporting it much easier and cheaper.
How could they launch such a faulty product. If it was 3 years ago maybe, but it's not really optional now.
Except it's not, we live in an IPv4 world.
Edit: How are you guys downvoting me on your v6 connections? HN only supports v4.
The engineering time is going into upstream too, so ath9k, hostap, and other big networking libs are benefiting from this.
Jan 2016 -> 10% Jan 2017 -> 20% Jan 2018 -> 40% Jan 2019 -> 80% Jan 2020 -> 100%
Seems quite good to me.
The ability to actually connect arbitrary devices, I hope, will be something that people will take advantage of. I know for many game servers I set up with siblings, the ability to not need to mess with a router's crappy "port forwarding" would be a welcome change. (Even if I had to mess w/ some local firewall, but that can perhaps be much more tightly integrated or at least, a better UX.)
IPv6 has been around for almost 20 years now, and is only recently cracking 10% (and I wonder how much of that 10+% is also dual stack). IPv4 sure as hell isn't going away in my lifetime. Who knows, maybe the lifetime of my kids too. What a mess!
The shittiest of routers support it so when you get one from a major internet company you should expect that it has support for an internet protocol which has been out for 18 years.
That's weird, here we get a /48 v6 block by default and one /32 v4 address. You'll never need more v6 addresses, but each v4 address comes at a monthly fee.
If this doesn't support ipv6 then it can only connect to legacy sites. Yes that's pretty much all sites today but this is inexcusable in a new product.