IAB Statement on IPv6

https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2016-2/iab-statement-on-ipv6/

by liotier • 10 years ago

142 126 10 years ago

daurnimator2• 10 years ago

IMO the major thing holding back IPv6 on the web is amazon. A huge proportion of services are hosted on AWS, and the lack of IPv6 addressing of instances cannot be forgiven.

ryao4• 10 years ago

Amazon and github are the two major offenders.

executesorder664• 10 years ago

https://ipv6wallofshame.com/

Baidu, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit are also major players who could make a huge difference.

Arnt3• 10 years ago

https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1539/ tells a different story.

liveoneggs• 10 years ago

as fastly goes, so goes github

AndrewDucker2• 10 years ago

Amazon seem to be slowly getting there: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/10/ipv6-supp...

kalleboo5• 10 years ago

Wow, how did I miss this, CloudFront getting IPv6 support is huge!

jontro• 10 years ago

ELBs support ipv6 as well

fulafel3• 10 years ago

IPv6 and a return to end-to-end addressing isn't really aligned with the AWS style of proprietary platform lock-in.

icedchai• 10 years ago

This makes no sense. AWS can give you IPv4 elastic IPs, which provide end-to-end addressing on IPv4. IPv6 will be no different in this regard.

"End-to-end addressing" is typically an end user issue, where end users use NAT. In the early days of the internet, nobody used NAT.

danyork• 10 years ago

The good news is that Amazon has been slowly rolling out IPv6 support across various AWS services (ex. S3, CloudFront). Once they support IPv6 on EC2, though, that will be the big breakthrough!

yuvadam• 10 years ago

Not to mention Route 53, which can serve AAAA records, but still has no IPv6 nameservers.

cm21875• 10 years ago

I'd say ISPs to start with. In the UK, BT still hasn't rolled out IPv6. Neither has vodafone.

Also I have servers in colocation with two datacenters, and for both I had to ask to the support to get an IPv6 range. We are very far from IPv6 becoming a standard feature.

lisivka• 10 years ago

It's time to switch HN to be IPv6 only forum, so 100% of HN'ers will be on IPv6 almost instantly. ;-)

Latty• 10 years ago

I'd say ISPs to start with. In the UK, BT still hasn't rolled out IPv6.

BT have at least partially rolled out support, as I have a v6 allocation on a BT broadband service.

the8472• 10 years ago

That varies strongly by country[0]. My home ISP for example does DS-Lite and last week their AFTR was overloaded. So ipv4 was almost unusable while v6 worked fine. So temporarily I was already living in a post-v4 world.

[0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

jburgess7773• 10 years ago

SKY have recently rolled out IPv6 suuport to nearly all customers: https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/news-page/2016/sky-co...

I use AAISP as my ISP and they have been providing IPv6 for a very long time: http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-ipv6.html

executesorder664• 10 years ago

I check the google stats[0] on ipv6 adoption every few months. Last time I checked it was barely 9% an now it's on 15% !

I would have never thought we'd get this far this fast. Looks like the switchover is actually going to happen.

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

tomschlick2• 10 years ago

Looks like the US is up to 30% now! I suspect mobile traffic is largely driving this as all the major carriers are moving to ipv6 only and proxy an ipv4 address when needed.

vishbar• 10 years ago

Really interesting how it spikes on weekends! I wonder if this is because more home broadband connections are ipv6-enabled compared to businesses?

executesorder664• 10 years ago

I guess it's hobbyists who's normal internet connection is ipv4, but on the weekend they have time to dick around with ipv6 devices and connections.

kiallmacinnes• 10 years ago

Yea, ISPs are upgrading home users for them.. Businesses tend to have their own equipment, and need to DIY the change, even if IPv6 is pushed down the wire to them by the ISP.

boulos• 10 years ago

Yes, but mobile phones even more so (e.g., the push to IPv6 in iOS 9: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=05042016a)

Arnt3• 10 years ago

I noticed the other day that IPv6 growth is slowing down, as Google measures it. Its access share used to double every ten or eleven months, now it doubles more slowly, and seems likely to reach 20% only in 2017 instead of this year, and if it goes on as in the recent months, 30% in 2018 instead of in 2017.

At a guess, many of most competent ISPs have done their thing and now we're seeing the more sluggish middle. Or? Comments?

Ambroos• 10 years ago

In Belgium we're up to 49.5% of Google traffic over IPv6, which is pretty impressive. All major ISP's have IPv6 enabled in a dual-stack setup right now. This works because almost all of them provide an all-in-one modem/router/access point, all remotely managed, so it's easy to just flick a switch on the ISP end and magically have everything go over IPv6.

What's holding back further progress is mostly people with their own NAT routers/DHCP that's not set up for IPv6, or company networks where the transition isn't planned. That's going to change very, very slowly indeed.

lmm4• 10 years ago

IPv6 was always going to be an S-curve. My guess is we'll see switchover at about the same rate up to 80%-90%, and then a long tail.

eb0la4• 10 years ago

If I remember well at least 2-3 years ago it was complicated to measure IPv6 usage on a high-end router, and that was tied to billing.

Every vendor (Cisco/Juniper/Alcatel/Huawei) had a different way to do it and since B2B billing depended on it IPv6 adoption was not as easy as expected.

woah2• 10 years ago

What was complicated about it?

vertex-four• 10 years ago

In the UK, only one big(-ish) ISP supports IPv6, and 2 significantly smaller ones. BT claim to be pushing it out next year, but they still have a large number of older consumer-end router/modem devices which can't be updated for it, so it'll take another half a decade for those devices to fail and be replaced. Once BT have pushed it out, many of the companies that depend on them for varying things should be able to build implementations fairly quickly.

wfn• 10 years ago

BTnet (BT's higher-end leased line etc. services) do support native IPv6 fwiw, but when I spoke to them (this was in Scotland) they said no customers ask for IPv6 to be enabled, and it's not enabled by default. (But if you ask them they'll do it no problem - verified to be true.:) But the situation is different with all that older consumer equipment as you say...

kalleboo5• 10 years ago

Here in Japan, the largest consumer fiber wholesale network (NTT) "supports" IPv6, but you need a separate, $100 router that talks PPPoEv6 since none of the common consumer routers (including the one they provision you with) seem to support it.

I also haven't been able to get PPPoEv6 working in macOS.

phicoh3• 10 years ago

Anything that can run OpenWRT should be able to do PPPoE with IPv6.

lloeki2• 10 years ago

Here in France, there have been leading ISPs (Free ADSL), good citizens (SFR), and laggards that keep on dragging their feet (Orange, Numericable). Things got worse when Numericable bought SFR, halting progress with stupid rules in place that when you get the budget version of a contract you don't get IPv6 because reasons.

Let's not get started on "pro" versions where you just don't get IPv6 at all, ever, and on the phone you can even get them mumbling that it's not even on the table (Completel).

tonfa• 10 years ago

Is Free still doing 6to4 (which was probably fine at the time) or did they start doing native ipv6?

marcosdumay• 10 years ago

Here at Brazil, I know of no consumer facing ISP that supports IPv6. But we have been busy dismantling a quasi-communist government, so things may change faster in the future (if we are successful in the dismantling).

eb0la4• 10 years ago

All mobile operators use it for their infrastructure because the procols make it mandatory.

Then they have a big ipv4 nat for cell phones in the BTS. Weird.

takeda• 10 years ago

From this: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html doesn't look like it is slowing down, it's not exponential though, but was it really? It's much easier to double up when number of users is low.

AndrewDucker2• 10 years ago

Topically, here are the minutes from the latest UK IPV6 Council meeting: http://www.ipv6.org.uk/2016/08/31/ipv6-council-meeting-octob...

Sky and BT both looking good, sadly Virgin didn't present this year.

NKCSS• 10 years ago

Better late than never I guess, but come on... IPv6 is nearly 20 years old in 2 years...

Spooky232• 10 years ago

I've not run into a problem solved by IPv6. There's no incentive for ISPs to provide good service, so they can just follow the mobile carrier route and nat/proxy when exhaustion becomes an issue.

As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.

ryao4• 10 years ago

I get better peering though the HE tunnel broker than I get on IPv4. :)

liotier2• 10 years ago

Especially to exotic destinations and to services which my ISP feels like choking a little (such as Youtube)...

proactivesvcs5• 10 years ago

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

_red2• 10 years ago

consumes router resources

Thats a weird claim to make against IPv4. Grab a calculator and see how much memory is required by a IPv6 /64 address space.

fps2• 10 years ago

As a sysadmin, if I had limitless IPv4 addresses, I'd still use NAT on servers and clients because it's a useful security layer. There's little reason that individual devices need globally routable IP addresses.

Spooky232• 10 years ago

IPv6 != No NATing.

Example: Verizon Wireless.

cm21875• 10 years ago

IPSec is one. You would burn two IPv4 to enable IPSec between two machines you control. That's a no brainer with IPv6. It is cumbersome and expensive with IPv4.

And given that most datacentres (outside of cloud services) are IPv6 enabled, this makes sense to secure server to server communications.

fs111• 10 years ago

and yet news.ycombinator.com is still not IPv6 enabled...

shmerl• 10 years ago

When will Verizon FiOS enable IPv6?

cjensen• 10 years ago

We have a product that uses ipv6 for inter-server communications. We've since learned that most major corporations routinely disable ipv6 on every computer.

Not helping.

danudey2• 10 years ago

Heard a "funny" story about Facebook switching over to pure IPv6 and their issues dealing with largely untested IPv6 implementations. For example, switches which, when presented with an IPv6 BGP route while they don't have IPv6 configured, crash. Apparently they took down an entire data centre full of rack switches finding that out.

My second-favorite problem, after that was solved, was developers constantly using IPv4-only code. Their eventual solution was to just disable IPv4 entirely so that anyone committing IPv4-only code was committing broken code.

It's amazing how much work it takes to bring people into the future.

eb0la4• 10 years ago

Very "funny", but that kind of crashes happened more than you imagine.. in telcos.

Usually the problem is memory. A machine with full routing enabled needs much more memory for IPv6 than for IPv4 and when routers run out of memory they just crash, reboot, and start again...

Keverw3• 10 years ago

I hope we don't have IPv6 only protocols and sites anytime soon. My cable company still is not supporting IPv6... It seems like something a major American ISP would of done by now.

virtuallynathan2• 10 years ago

Which one?

Keverw3• 10 years ago

I used http://test-ipv6.com/ to run the test.

Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) appears to be SCRR-10796 - Time Warner Cable Internet LLC, US

I'm in Ohio.

tjohns• 10 years ago

On the contrary, having IPv6 only sites and protocols would greatly help adoption.

One of the problems is that a lot of companies think that IPv4 is good enough, since there's no discernable difference to end users right now. Every IPv6 site is also accessible over IPv4, and the community is already heavily invested in engineering around the shortcomings otherwise created by NAT on IPv4.

Coupled with the additional cost and security considerations that have to go into an IPv6 deployment, we've got a good recipe for encouraging both ISPs and corporate providers to stay on IPv4 for as long as possible. (If we're unlucky, we might even see ISPs roll out carrier grade NAT instead of upgrading.)

djhworld• 10 years ago

I'm wondering what will happen when ISPs start doling out IPv6 addresses, will every customer get a unique, static IPv6 address?

Right now my ISP (BT) gives you an IPv4 address, but it's dynamic. They charge extra for a static IP

jburgess7773• 10 years ago

I don't have an answer to your question but the latest news from BT is:

"All BT broadband lines support IPv6 with a compatible router, except IPstream connections"

http://www.ipv6.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/UKIPv6Coun...

pc2g4d• 10 years ago

This is telling organizations developing standards to basically pretend IPv4 doesn't exist and is no longer in use. At least that's how I read it. Seems a bit premature.

IAB Statement on IPv6

Related Stories