Hacker News Reader

Comment by troupe | Hacker News Reader

My guess is that going IPV6 only for load balancers would make it break for enough people that AWS thinks it would reflect poorly on their service.

View on HN

I agree and would first urge people to test IPv6 client access using some lazy-loaded image that is IPv6 only on their website. It should look like a normal resource so that false-negatives are not introduced by NoScript or uBlock.

People can of course manually test here [1] from their homes, schools, work place. I would wager most cellular data networks would be fine. The impact would probably depend on how a website is utilized. Stats on mobile vs. non-mobile would probably be telling. The people on their cell should test LTE vs Wifi and clear cache between tests.

[1] - https://test-ipv6.com/

You would lose that wager. I’m in the southeast United States. My ISP, Spectrum, works fine with IPv6. My cellular provider, Total by Verizon, is IPv4 only.

For what it's worth I did qualify my statement using most. A few of the older cellular networks are slower to adopt and sadly I can understand why having worked for one of them. If you find it interesting here [1] are some rudimentary stats from the US. It's not an all inclusive picture of things.

[1] - https://ipv6-test.com/stats/country/US

One provider without v6 doesn't mean that most providers don't have v6.

And now you reminded me of the "Dancing Turtle" from KAME.

https://www.kame.net/

That seems unlikely given that the vast majority of users have no clue what the underlying service provider is for the web services they're using, and those who do know are savvy enough to understand the difference between an AWS issue and a configuration issue.

Imagine if Cloudflare went to IPV6 only. Yes, Cloudflare's customers should know what that means, but the end users that are using the service may not be and if the error in anyway says Cloudflare, then it gives Cloudflare a bad reputation.

While AWS is a bit (just a bit) more removed from the end user than Cloudflare, there is still the potential for it not being good PR.

Cloudflare actually presents end users with an authentication page on a regular basis. AWS is strictly behind the scenes. The only time I've ever become aware that a site is using AWS is when reading their engineering blog or spelunking in the dev tools.

These infinite verification prompts are the reason I no longer consider Cloudflare as an option for business use and would not recommend it to anyone. I know that they are configurable by the admins but they give bad PR to Cloudflare. I am not sure what this company was thinking associating itself with such a terrible user experience.

Cloudflare couldn't dare of IPv6 only until a lot more of the internet supports IPv6. They could however offer a discount of some sort to customers that are IPv6 only. That includes proxy your IPv6 only site to IPv4 (actually they would probably not give a discount directly, but let you apply discounts you get from your ISP)

But a load balancer doesn't have to be user-facing. It might just be fronting an internal API or microservice

Reply on news.ycombinator.com