Hacker News Reader

Comment by vnw | Hacker News Reader

Every time I see a conversation about IPv6, this argument comes up. Is "it's got a gorillion IP addresses" the only redeemable quality IPv6 has?

View on HN

It's less a redeeming quality and more the entire reason why we bothered to switch to a new system. So yes, that is the point.

Then, given that CG-NAT solutions have proven to work well and they don't bother most end users, it's no wonder the transition to IPv6 has stopped.

> it's no wonder the transition to IPv6 has stopped

Where are you getting that from? Looking at public IPv6 statistics from big companies shows that it's going up. Google's shows a 4.5% increase in IPv6 of total traffic during the past year[0]. Facebook's shows a 6% increase and at 55% for the US [1]. Meanwhile Mexico went from 5% IPv6 to 25% this year [2].

[0]: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html [1]: https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6 [2]: https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php?metric=p&timef...

These statistics are meaningless propaganda. What you should be interested in is the velocity of IPv6 adoption growth among ISPs and countries where adoption stopped all together, to know what to expect from actual adoption in coming years. (it's basically a failure btw)

> What you should be interested in is the velocity of IPv6 adoption growth among ISPs and countries where adoption stopped all together, to know what to expect from actual adoption in coming years. (it's basically a failure btw)

I don't understand. Are you telling me to look at how IPv6 adoption is among countries, where IPv6 usage growth has stopped? Are there any such countries? Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by "actual adoption". Every statistic I look at, as referenced in my previous comment, I see IPv6 usage continuing to grow. And you're calling that "propaganda"?

For ISPs (and mobile carriers) that are actively involved in their infrastructure, CG-NAT is more expensive to run than native ipv6 (aquiring IPv4 public addresses; tracking connection states; if all customers are on private IPv4, maintaining multiple distinct private networks with the same address space is a hassle too), so those ISPs are pushing to make services available over IPv6 (I've heard from T-Mobile USA and Jio India), but that doesn't mean they won't also run CG-NAT for customers on older devices and for services that aren't IPv6 -- it just reduces the deployment. For smaller ISPs, or where everything is contracted out, the cost savings aren't as apparent.

I don't think its helpful to discredit all the other technical advantages of v6. Address assignment and configuration is significantly better under SLAAC than DHCP, multicasting actually makes sense, and routing logic and packet format are simplified.

If you were to try implementing a router for ipv4 and v6 the v6 one would be dramatically simplier with a lot fewer convoluted edge cases.

I actually specifically do regard (most of) v6's additional features as a bug; I think most of them could and therefore should have been implemented as separate protocols (consider ipsec, which actually did get pulled out and back ported to 4). I think the protocol we ended up with suffers from horrible second system effect and its scope creep it's part of the reason why it's taken decades to get mass adoption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com