| ▲ | 10000truths 2 hours ago |
| It's hard to adopt something that schools don't teach. I know someone who graduated from UCI with a CompSci degree with a specialization in networking, just before the COVID19 pandemic began. He recalled that the networking courses he took did not cover IPv6 at all, except to describe the address format (i.e. 128 bits, written as hexadecimal, colon-separated). Everything he learned about IPv6, he had to learn on his own or on the job. A standard that has been published for over two decades, heavily used for over a decade, and critical in the worldwide growth of the Internet, was treated as an afterthought by one of the premier universities in the US. Obvious disclaimer: This is a sample size of 1, and an anecdote is not data, yada yada. I'm not involved in academia, and have no insight into the adoption of IPv6 in CompSci networking curricula on a broader level. |
|
| ▲ | Bluecobra 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I recently passed the CCNA again and they really spend a lot more time on IPv6 compared to 15 years ago. It inspired me to go all in this time and configured my home network with a PD allocation from my ISP. I also came up with some fun labs and even got a IPv6 sage T-shirt from Hurricane Electric. |
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tbh it’s is a huge PITA with little practical benefit. IPv6 is the Perl 6 of networking. Many of the big benefits are things that don’t deliver anything that folks are lacking. You also need to understand how you fit in the overall universe more. |
| |
| ▲ | eulenteufel an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | What about the benefit of there being enough addresses? | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | jpdb 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That particular benefit has no value if you still need to support v4. It's almost a self-inflicted tragedy of the commons or reverse network-effect. Adopting IPv6 doesn't alleviate the pain of IPv4 exhaustion if you still need to support dual-stack. | |
| ▲ | the_mitsuhiko 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The widespread deployment of NAT and VPNs has counter acted the market forces that were assumed to make IPv6 appealing. | | |
| ▲ | throw0101a 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > The widespread deployment of NAT and VPNs has counter acted the market forces that were assumed to make IPv6 appealing. Tell that to everyone who is behind CG-NAT and has issues with (e.g.) video games. Or all the (small(er)) ISPs that have to layout CapEx for translation boxes. | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | IPv4 addresses are still expensive. NAT is a value add for a lot of cloud platforms. IPv6 has arguably done more to counteract market forces related to IPv4 address exhaustion. |
|
| |
| ▲ | avhception an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I absolutely love the things that IPv6 delivers and employ it on purpose. | | |
| ▲ | UqWBcuFx6NV4r 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The world very clearly doesn’t revolve around what HN users “love”. | | |
| ▲ | dijit 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think the western world very much revolves around: * The internet * Linux servers * Automation I get your point, but it falls on deaf ears to me since most people don’t feel the benefits until some passionate nerd makes something that scratches an itch. For a practical example: peer-to-peer sharing like Airdrop is much easier to implement in a world with ipv6. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | reincarnate0x14 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've been of the opinion this is one of those "the art advances one funeral at a time." A lot of people are married to IPv4 and its arcane warts and really, really do not want to deal with IPv6 even though most of the core concepts are almost exactly the same thing, except better. I can't imagine anyone who dealt with V4 multicast ever wanting to go back, and I bet they've memory-holed parts of V4 that simply can't be used anymore and so have been turned off for decades(RIP to RIP). Has anyone seen the automated address assignment in V4 ever work? The usual hint it even exists is that if you see one of those addresses it means something is messed up in your Windows host or the DHCP server died. People complain about dual stacks and all that but with a modicum of planning it is minimal extra effort. Anything made in the last decade has V4/V6 support and unless you're messing with low level network code, it's often difficult to even know which way you're being routed. Network devices pretty much all support using groups of names or addresses and not hard coded dotted-quad config statements now, and have for a while. And that was good practice on V4 networks too. Part of it is probably that remembering various V4 magic is easy enough to do but feels complicated enough to be an accomplishment. In V6, there is no point in doing most of that because the protocol has so much more automation of addressing schemes. But if you like those addressing schemes, V6 can do them even better. You can do all sorts of crazy address translation on either the network or host id portion, like giving an internal network a ULA that is magically translated to a public network prefix without any stateful tracking unless that is desirable. I feel there is some analog to DNS in that regard, people who have gotten used to DNS don't give a damn about host IP addresses but some people seem to really like the idea of a fixed address statement. People also seem to be stuck on the idea that NAT creates some kind of security when that's really the stateful tracking that is required for many-to-few translations (thus making firewalls a common place to implement it), not the translation itself. Similar to certificates versus shared keys, yes, one is more upfront effort but that's because it's solving the problem of the Sisyphean task that is the other. |
|
| ▲ | lloeki 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Meanwhile, I was taught and practiced IPv6 in 2003-5 in engineering school (France). As of 2024, IPv6 deployment in France was >97% mobile and >98% residential due to not being required for obtaining a 5G radio license (and then v6 simply carried downward to being available on 4G) + every ISP that provides FTTH also providing v6. https://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/observatoire/ipv6/Arc... Over here IPv6 JustWorks to the point of absolute boredom. |
|
| ▲ | freejazz 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Weird, I graduated from RIT in 2009 with a B.S. in Applied Networking and Systems Administration and we covered IPV6 quite a bit |
|
| ▲ | belter an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> I know someone who graduated from UCI with a CompSci degree with a specialization in networking, just before the COVID19 pandemic began. He recalled that the networking courses he took did not cover IPv6 at all... I am not doubting you, but I feel this story is too hard to believe without adding further nuances... MIT 6.829 teaches IPv6 since 2002:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-829-computer-networks-fall-200... In Portugal and other countries, there are subjects on Computer Science before College or University, and they teach it on High School... |
| |
| ▲ | kortilla an hour ago | parent [-] | | The issue is that it’s not taught with IPv6 first. Networking courses do all kinds of stuff using IPv4 to demonstrate various protocols on top (e.g. http, tcp, icmp, etc). Then there is usually a chapter on IPv6 that just briefly covers the differences. I.e. the exercises all tend to use IPv4 as the foundation so people don’t practice v6 | | |
| ▲ | bc569a80a344f9c 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | But TCP or HTTP don’t care about the underlying transport. They’re higher level protocols that are payloads to either IPv4 or IPv6. It’s irrelevant what the transport is when dissecting HTTP and very little time should be spent on it. IPv4 is, for all intents and purposes, still the default transport. It’s also simpler than IPv6 in some regards. When teaching layer 3, it makes sense to teach both, and teach IPv4 first. Though I fully agree that they should be taught with equal emphasis. I don’t doubt there’s a good number of programs out there that don’t into sufficient detail on IPv6. | |
| ▲ | b112 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well it makes sense, no one uses ipv6 anyhow. Most I know are waiting for ipv8. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | alt227 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| IPv6 was superceded by NAT a long time ago. It will die a slw and quiet death which is why it is now being ignored by training facilities and experts worldwide. |
| |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Digital Ocean didn’t even have an ipv6 address on by default in the droplet I created last week. It’s just a switch to flip, but I’ll bet the support costs of hobbyists/enthusiasts not realizing they needed to also write firewall rules, make sure ports weren’t open for databases and things like that for ipv6. | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a "just doesn't work" experience every time that I try it and I don't experience any value from it, it's not like there isn't anything I can connect to on IPv6 that I can't connect to on IPv4. My ISP has finally mastered providing me with reliable albeit slow DSL. Fiber would change my life, there just isn't any point in asking for IPv6. Also note those bloated packets are death for many modern applications like VoIP. | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Exactly. Spectrum delivers good IPv6 service in my area. I tried it when I upgraded my gateway. All of my devices are assigned 4 IPv6 IPs, hostnames are replaced by auto assigned stuff from the ISP, and lots of random things don’t work. I went from being pumped to learn more to realizing I’m going to invest a lot of time and I could not identify and tangible benefit. | |
| ▲ | dpark 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > those bloated packets are death for many modern applications like VoIP. Huh? The packet sizes aren’t that much different and VOIP is hardly a taxing application at this point anyway. VOIP needs barely over dial-up level bandwidth. |
| |
| ▲ | akerl_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My memory of IPv6 is getting waves of support tickets from people who took their (already questionable) practice of blocking ICMP on IPv4, blocked ICMPv6, and then got confused when IPv6 stopped working. |
| |
| ▲ | apatheticonion 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AWS charges for ipv4 addresses but ipv6 addresses are free. ipv4 with NAT doesn't supercede ipv6, it just extends its life. | |
| ▲ | MBCook 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It was? Isn’t it what all the cell phones networks use these days? And most ISP’s? They may hand the end user device a IPv4 address but don’t they actually use IPv6? | | |
| ▲ | alt227 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes as I said in a sibling post the telcos are the only ones using it, and that is the only reason that graphs like the google client one exist. That is only because it already exists and is cheaper than using NAT when you have hundreds of millions of clients. IPv6 only ISPs will never leave the mobile space. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | “The largest ISPs are the only ones using it” is another way of describing it as ubiquitous. | | |
| ▲ | alt227 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I disagree. If they were the largest ISPs then adoption would already be over 50% instead of stalling below it. I would say its more "Wireless only ISPs are the only ones using it" | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I would say its more "Wireless only ISPs are the only ones using it" So… the largest ISPs. Recent number show about 94% of Americans have cell phones and 92% of American households have Internet connections. In raw numbers, that’s about 300M cell phones and 111M households. If zero fixed ISPs support IPv6, that’d still be about 75% of total Internet connections that do. | |
| ▲ | patmorgan23 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Name a large isp not using V6 |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is not even funny to read, given huge networks like T-Mobile USA being IPv6-only. | | |
| ▲ | cyberax an hour ago | parent [-] | | They are using IPv6 as a fancy transport protocol for IPv4 NAT. | | |
| ▲ | cornholio a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a bit like saying AC electricity was just a fancy way of delivering what customers really wanted, DC energy. I'm sure that DC customers used their Edison DC equipment for decades after the grid went AC only; but in the long run the newer, flexible, lower overhead system became the default for new equipment and the compatibility cludges were abandoned. | |
| ▲ | orangeboats an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | By being IPv6-only they are effectively making their users to preferentially connect over native IPv6 though. Personal anecdote, but once you have IPv6 setup properly (meaning your devices prefer IPv6 over IPv4) 70-80% of your internet traffic will be IPv6. The NAT64 is really just there for the holdouts. | | |
| ▲ | ectospheno 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I run dual stack at home with dns64/nat64. I average 50/50 traffic v4/v6. Web browsing gets skewed v6 but large file transfers and some streaming pushed it back to 50/50 overall. My family would revolt if I went v6 only so I'm not sure I'd say its just there for holdouts. Major annoyances include any old device and my hue bridge. |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | No; most sites I reach from the phone seem to be reached via IPv6. E.g. hitting whatismyip.org exposes an IPv6 (though mentions an IPv4 because they're trying to discover that, too).
Some sites do not support IPv6; for those indeed there's a XLAT464 service. | | |
| ▲ | sgjohnson 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 464XLAT is for dealing with IPv4 literal addresses in a v6 only network. Non-literals can be addressed with DNS64 & NAT64 |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | anon7000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What are you even basing that on? Here are some facts: - You have to pay money to get a static IPv4 address for cloud machines on eg AWS. Anything needing a static IPv4 will cost more and more as demand increases. NAT doesn’t exactly fix that. - Mainstream IoT protocols have a hard dependency on IPv6 (eg Matter/Thread). Not to mention plenty of 5g deployments. - Many modern networks quietly use IPv6 internally. I mean routing is simpler without NAT. So it almost definitely won’t die. It’s more likely it’ll slowly and quietly continue growing behind the scenes, even if consumers are still seeing IPv4 on their home networks. | | |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | IPv4 addresses have been dropping in price for a few years and are cheaper in real terms than at my point in the last 15 | | |
| ▲ | throw0101a 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > IPv4 addresses have been dropping in price for a few years and are cheaper in real terms than at my point in the last 15 More IPv6 deployments may (ironically?) help reduce IPv4 prices as you can get IPv6 'for free' and have Internet connectivity (and not have to worry about exhaustion in any practical way). Doing CG-NAT could reduce the number IPv4 addresses you need to acquire. |
| |
| ▲ | cyberax an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Matter/Thread use private IPv6 addresses so it's just an implementation detail. Nobody is exposing light switches to the public Internet. |
| |
| ▲ | patrickmcnamara 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html | | |
| ▲ | alt227 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | People love this graph and regularly tout it as if it explains full internet usage. Especially when they dont bother to add any explanation or comment alongside it. This graph is mainly due to the fact that telcos use IPv6 for mobile devices, nothing more. Over time you will see that graph flatline and peter out as mobile device uage reaches critical mass. | | |
| ▲ | zokier 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In US even desktops have 45% adoption rate: https://radar.cloudflare.com/explorer?dataSet=http&groupBy=i... afaik every single major US fixed line ISP is rolling out ipv6. | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It seems more the other end of the stick: the IPv4 side of the graph is mainly held up due to corporations. The consumer internet continues to switch, but corporate VPNs are going to continue to drag down the numbers until corporations get charged enough for IPv4 address space that bottom lines start to notice. | |
| ▲ | patrickmcnamara 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It was simply to point out that you are objectively incorrect. No commentary was necessary. My phone and home broadband both use IPv6 primarily. | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Every major ISP in the US, India, and most of the rest of Asia that I’ve seen is handing out and using IPv6 now too. Hell, chances are if you got a new router (like any new client) for your ISP, you’d be on v6 too. | | |
| ▲ | alt227 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yep, and even with all those countries with their billions of mobile devices IPv6 use still hasnt even reached 50%. Pretty much all ISPs hand out both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses to their clients, this is nothing new. When they start only issueing IPv6 IPs is when it would start truly taking off, but it will never get to that point and it will never happen. | | |
|
|
|
|