Remix.run Logo
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark(google.com)
283 points by Aaronmacaron a day ago | 172 comments
hosh 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I am in the middle of building infrastructure in GCP. The workload is your typical stateless web + db workload.

As of now, there is no way to have a 100% internal ipv6. Many of the serices, including CloudSQL or the connection between external and internal load balancers do not support ipv6, even when the external load balancer support ipv6 forwarding rules at the front end.

This means that careful internal ipv4 allocations still matter.

rtdq 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And still, in the year of our lord 2026, GitHub does not support IPv6.

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/10539

growse 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A non-trivial minority of the time, they don't support IPv4 either!

Landing7610 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Our university has bad problems with ipv4. Every few days you'll notice some websites being unreachable, including github. Although with their uptime recently, you never know who's to blame...

farfatched an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GitHub should absolutely support IPv6, but until then... transip.eu provide IPv6 addresses which transparently proxy to github.com: https://www.transip.eu/knowledgebase/5277-using-transip-gith...

You'll need to update your DNS server to include those as AAAA records.

Do providers like NextDNS or RethinkDNS allow these sorts of overrides?

voltagex_ an hour ago | parent [-]

>The Github IPv6 Proxy can only be used for traffic to Github using a VPS from TransIP which uses IPv6.

sschueller 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just found this little site. https://isgithubipv6.web.app/

Maybe we shouldn't even measure percentage adoption and instead just if github has finally adopted..

jeroenhd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They supported IPv6 for a short time, but then stopped their experiment.

An excellent reason to move away from Github, I find.

globular-toast 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do we know any technical reason for this? Or are we left to think this is somehow a political thing?

michh 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Perhaps a little tin foil hatty and definitely not the only reason but Microsoft owns Github and also makes a boatload of money off of Azure. Incumbent cloud providers like Azure have a major advantage in terms of having plenty of IPv4 addressing available whereas a new entrant to that market would have to buy or lease that space at a premium. Thus, these companies have an incentive to keep IPv4 a necessity.

IshKebab 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

IPv4 is going to be a necessity for many many decades no matter what Microsoft do. Even when IPv6 is at 99%, people aren't going to want 1 in every 100 people to not be able to access their site at all. It'll need to be like 99.9% before we start seeing serious IPv6-only services.

jiggawatts 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Sure, but the implementation in the public clouds is totally backwards.

What they should have done is have their core network default to IPv6 with IPv4 an optional add-on for things like public IP addresses, CDN endpoints, edge routers, VPNs, etc...

Instead, their core networks are IPv4 only for the most part with IPv6 a distant afterthought.

denkmoon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Outdated beliefs probably. When I talk about v6 support in our b2b saas, PM laughs and says nobody uses that shit. Big tech are massive laggards on this funnily enough.

10000truths 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Definitely not for the biggest ones. Google and Meta have so many machines in their data centers that IPv6 addressing becomes a technical necessity due to the risk of exhausting the RFC 1918 address space. Naturally, they were early adopters of IPv6.

ViscountPenguin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's because big tech is USA based mostly, where there's still a glut of ipv4 available.

alex_duf 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a possibly a managerial thing, which KPI are you improving when spending engineering time on adding IPv6 support?

That said, for their HTTP stack they use fastly (as far as I understand), which should make the shift moderately easier.

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It could be that they don't want to implement IP bans in IPv6.

c0balt an hour ago | parent [-]

Or the most likely more expensive rate limiting (computational wise)

michh 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

I mean, given how the site performs on average I don't think they've optimized so much that the extra cpu cycles of ANDing with the fixed constant of 2^64-1 and then looking up or hashing a 16 byte integer - whatever they do - rather than a 4 byte one would increase the load significantly. Let's be pessimistic and say it's 20 extra cpu cycles, that's not gonna be much of a problem if their load balancers were made in the past 20 years.

AtNightWeCode an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You probably need a hefty security reimplementation if you want to add IPv6 to Github.

sandeepkd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Came here to exactly check on this to see if there are any changes on Github side too

missingdays 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most websites still don't

colmmacc 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If GitHub flipped a switch and enabled IPv6 it would instantly break many of their customers who have configured IP based access controls [1]. If the customer's network supports IPv6, the traffic would switch, and if they haven't added their IPv6 addresses to the policy ... boom everything breaks.

This is a tricky problem; providers don't have an easy way to correlate addresses or update policies pro-actively. And customers hate it when things suddenly break no matter how well you go about it.

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat...

alibarber 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Having being messing around personally with getting my own blocks of IP addresses and routing[1] - I've become terrified at the idea of implementing access control based on IP address.

Unless your own organisation in the RR has the IP addresses assigned to you as Provider Independent resources, there just seems to be so many places where 'your' IP address could, albeit most likely accidentally, become not yours any more. And even then, just like domain names, stop renewing the registration and someone else will get them - I was that someone else recently...

[1] AS202858

progbits 21 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Anyone who relies on IP filtering for security deserves to have it broken. Change my mind.

keybits an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Tailscale have a great FAQ about IPv4 vs IPv6: https://tailscale.com/docs/reference/faq/ipv6

If you're not an expert in this area it's worth a read - I certainly learned a few things!

rmunn an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That was excellent, thanks for recommending it. I particularly liked how it's a pretty factual FAQ, not particularly cheerleading for IPv6 nor saying "IPv6 is a failure, give up on it".

menotyou 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

"IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP), the successor to IPv4."

This is a misconception. It is not the successor to IPv4, it is an alternative. Maybe the alternative is so good it will eventually make the older extinct, but it does not look like that

jcalvinowens 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I consistently get 100x as many captchas from google over V6 as over V4, on many different networks: it is obnoxious and obviously broken on their end.

usui 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it. I thought I would see IPv6 take over in my lifetime as the default for platforms to build on but I can see I was wrong. Enterprise and commercial companies are literally going to hold back internet progress around 60 to 75 years because it's in their best interest to ensure users can't host services without them. Maybe even 75 years might be too optimistic? They are literally going to do everything in their power to avoid the transition, either being dragged out kicking and screaming or throwing their hands up and saying they can't support IPv6 because it costs too much.

Try going IPv6-only by disabling IPv4 on your computer as a test and notice that almost nothing works except Google. End users shouldn't need to set up NAT64/6to4 tunneling. It should be ISPs doing that to prepare for the transition.

Also, notice how Android and iOS don't support turning off IPv4.

keeperofdakeys 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nearly all ISPs these days are deploying IPv6 for their mobile networks and core service networks, especially in less developed markets^1. The reason is simple, a cost justification. What doesn't exist is a cost justification for Enterprises to deploy IPv6, and for ISPs to deploy Residential / Corporate Internet IPv6.

IMO with the right market conditions, IPv6 could spread really fast within 6-24 months. For example, most cloud providers are now charging for IPv4 addresses when IPv6 is free. Small changes like that push in the right direction.

^1 https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/04/asia_in_brief/

reddalo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Hetzner makes you pay 1 € per IPv4, while IPv6 is free. I'd gladly get rid of all IPv4's given that I have many servers.

dtech 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apple/iOS is probably one of the biggest individual drivers of IPv6 adoption. They've been requiring that iOS apps work on IPv6-only networks for close to 10 years now

aniviacat 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If that's the case, how does the Github app work on iOS?

dtech 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nat64: https://developer.apple.com/support/ipv6/

nothrabannosir an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m guessing the app works but their prod servers don’t? If they can point the app during review at a “self hosted” GitHub Enterprise server on a test domain with AAAA that would pass the requirement as stated by gp , without requiring GitHub.com actually support ipv6.

eptcyka 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Differential enforcement.

imoverclocked 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

ISPs often fail to do this because there is always someone in the hierarchy who says, "nobody is demanding it."

FridgeSeal an hour ago | parent [-]

I worked at a place where they refused to run it _anywhere_ because a couple of people were insistent that it was “insecure”.

vr46 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My German ISP supports it now, which was the limiting factor for me, and a new VPS I just bought also does, so finally I was able to create my first personal AAAA record. I am hoping that we're seeing a tipping point. Again.

drpixie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing.

Well, the curve has got to level-out at 100%.

cowsandmilk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it can level out below that and is (as the parent was saying).

zokier 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> End users shouldn't need to set up 6to4 tunneling. It should be ISPs doing that to prepare for the transition.

Which is what ISP are doing with 464XLAT deployments. IPv6-mostly networking and IPv4-as-a-service are things that are happening in real world right now.

kalleboo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah in Japan my ISP even lets me choose which IPv4 provider I want to use, as the fiber network is IPv6-native and IPv4 is "just another service" like IPTV.

lmm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think we'll hit a tipping point soon, just like with Python3 - for years and years it seemed almost stalled, then it became easier to start with python3 than python2 and suddenly everyone migrated.

usui 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This seems like wishful thinking. Python3 vs. Python2 seems different than IPv6 vs. IPv4.

yangm97 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

“Gradually, then suddenly.”

preisschild 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It should be ISPs doing that to prepare for the transition.

Yeah, I dont get why more ISPs don't offer carrier-grade NAT64 instead of the typical CGNAT

lmm 3 hours ago | parent [-]

In parts of the world with fewer IP addresses they already are. My ISP _only_ offers MAP-E access to the IPv4 internet for anyone not grandfathered into an older plan.

waynesonfire 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing.

That makes sense. The majority of IPv6 deployment is mobile.

The next wave of adoption requires ISPs start offering residential IPv6. Once this happens, router manufacturers will innovate around the IPv6 offering as a differentiator, making it easy to deploy by end-users. IPv6 wifi APs will then become ubiqutious and so forth across other services. Has to start with ISPs.

dtech 3 hours ago | parent [-]

ISPs in the US and Europe mostly have been offering IPv6 for a while now

jabl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately my ISP here in Europe is not one of those offering IPv6.

yxhuvud an hour ago | parent [-]

Mine does and it works so well that I actually have to turn it off when working from home as a bunch of the third party servers at work doesn't have any support for it.

Hikikomori 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Other than France or Germany its far from mostly.

stackghost 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is there a reason why adoption has been so abysmally slow? Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now, and surely every piece of enterprise-grade kit sold in the last 20 years has supported v6.

The only arguments I've ever heard against ipv6 that made any sense are that:

1: it's hard to remember addresses, which is mayyyyybe valid for homelab enthusiast types, but for medium scale and up you ought to have a service that hands out per-machine hostnames, so the v6 address becomes merely an implementation detail that you can more or less ignore unless you're grepping logs. I have this on my home network with a whopping 15 devices, and it's easy.

and 2: with v6 you can't rely on NAT as an ersatz firewall because suddenly your printer that used to be fat dumb and happy listening on 192.168.1.42 is now accidentally globally-routable and North Korean haxors are printing black and white Kim Il Sung propaganda in your home office and using up all your toner. And while this example was clearly in jest there's a nugget of truth that if your IOT devices don't have globally-routable addresses they're a bit harder to attack, even though NAT isn't a substitute for a proper firewall.

But both of these are really only valid for DIY homelab enthusiast types. I honestly have no idea why other people resist ipv6.

noirscape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The big reason is that domestic ISPs don't want to switch (not just in the US, but everywhere really.)

Data centers and most physical devices made the jump pretty early (I don't recall a time where the VPS providers I used didn't allow for IPv6 and every device I've used has allowed IPv6 in the last 2 decades besides some retro handhelds), but domestic ISPs have been lagging behind. Mobile networks are switching en masse because of them just running into internal limits of IPv4.

Domestic ISPs don't have that pressure; unlike mobile networks (where 1 connection needing an IP = 1 device), they have an extra layer in place (1 connection needing an IP = 1 router and intranet), which significantly reduces that pressure.

The lifespan of domestic ISP provided hardware is also completely unbound by anything resembling a security patch cycle, cost amortization or value depreciation. If an ISP supplies a device, unless it fundamentally breaks to a point where it quite literally doesn't work anymore (basically hardware failure), it's going to be in place forever. It took over 10 years to kill WEP in favor of WPA on consumer grade hardware. To support IPv6, domestic ISP providers need to do a mass product recall for all their ancient tech and they don't want to do that, because there's no real pressure to do it.

IPv6 exists concurrently with IPv4, so it's easier for ISPs to make anyone wanting to host things pay extra for an IPv4 address (externalizing an ever increasing cost on sysadmins as the IP space runs out of addresses) rather than upgrade the underlying tech. The internet default for user facing stuff is still IPv4, not IPv6.

If you want to force IPv6 adoption, major sites basically need to stop routing over IPv4. Let's say Google becomes inaccessible over IPv4 - I guarantee you that within a year, ISPs will suddenly see a much greater shift towards IPv6.

ENGNR an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's frustrating that even brand new Unifi devices that claim to support IPv6 are actually pretty broken when you try to use it. So 10 years from right now even, unless they can software patch it upwards.

zokier 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Except that is completely wrong. Consumer/residential networks have significantly higher ipv6 adoption rates that corporate/enterprise networks. That is why you see such clear patterns (weekend vs weekday) in the adoption graphs.

crote 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, the data plane supports it - but what about the management plane?

I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs did all the management tasks through a 30-year-old homebrew pile of technical debt, with lots of things relying on basic assumptions like "every connection has exactly one ip address, which is 32 bits long".

Porting all of that to support ipv6 can easily be a multi-year project.

Sesse__ an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Porting all of that to support ipv6 can easily be a multi-year project.

FWIW, as someone who has done exactly this in a megacorp (sloshing through homebrew technical debt with 32-bit assumptions baked in), the initial wave to get the most important systems working was measured in person-months. The long tail was a slog, of course, but it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Hikikomori 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

This is true, I worked for an old ISP/mobile carrier that started in the 80s about 10-15 years ago. They had basically any system you could think of still running, from decently modern vmware with windows and linux to hp-ux, openvms, sunos, AIX, etc. Could walk around and see hardware 30 years old still going, I think one console router had an uptime of 14 years or so. One time I opened a cabinet and found a pentium 1 desktop pc on the floor still running and connected, served some webpage. The old SMSC from the 80s on DEC hardware was still in its racks though not operational, they didn't need the space as the room couldn't provide enough power or cooling for more than a few modern racks. The planning program for fiber, transmission, racks, etc, required such an old java that new security bugs didn't apply to it, and looked and worked like an old mainframe program.

The core team supported ipv6 for a long time, but its rather easy to do that part. The hard part is the customer edge and CPE and the stack to manage it, it may have a lifetime of 2 decades.

nubinetwork 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Like surely all the big players have updated their networking equipment by now

My home isp can't even do symmetrical gigabit, let alone ipv6...

esseph an hour ago | parent [-]

That's extremely common unless on "active" fiber (vs GPON, DOCSIS3, DSL, most fixed wireless, satellite, mobile, etc.)

Your wifi isn't symmetrical either.

Hikikomori 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Those are designed to have static asymmetrical bandwidth though, *dm split gives ISP side more of possible shared bandwidth. Wifi bandwidth is shared and dynamic so client can use all of it.

cyberax an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6.

For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean.

In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses are supposed to be withdrawn. So your hosts can end up with _no_ addresses. ULA was invented to solve this, but the source selection rules are STILL being debated: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-upda...

Then there's DHCP. With IPv4 the almost-universal DHCP serves as an easy way to do network inspection. With IPv6 there's literally _nothing_ similar. Stateful DHCPv6 is not supported on Android (because its engineers are hell-bent on preventing IPv6). And even when it's supported, the protocol doesn't require clients to identify themselves with a human-readable hostname.

Then there's IP fragmentation and PMTU that are a burning trash fire. Or the IPv6 extension headers. Or....

In short, there are VERY good reasons why IPv6 has been floundering.

philipallstar 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How do the working IPv6 deployments cope with these issues?

yangm97 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason: Skill issue.

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ignore all the excuses like longer addresses and incompatible hardware. The actual reason is that everyone hates change.

themafia 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Comcast, one of the largest residential ISPs in the USA, has almost full IPv6 deployment by default. The majority Verizon Wireless is IPv6 by default. Residential customers in the USA have great access if they just enable the stack.

There is nothing about IPv6 that prevents ISPs from filtering ports for all customers. They almost all actively filter at least port 25, 139 and 445 regardless of the actual transport. So I'm not sure "blocking service hosting" is the actual goal here.

The problem seems to be that all of the large and wealthy nations of the world have made the necessary huge investments into IPv6 while many of their smaller neighbors and outlying countries and islands have struggled to get any appreciable deployment.

It should be a UN and IMF priority to get IPv6 networks deployed in the rest of the world so we can finally start thinking about a global cutover.

dtech 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In many developing countries IPv6 adoption is far and sometimes networks are IPv6-only, because IPv4 is expensive and they have relatively little addresses compared to users...

You can see southeast Asia is pretty green on the map of the post.

kortilla an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

A UN priority!? They have real issues they should be dealing with like the life and death of millions of people

panny 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't want IPv6. Why would I? It's like a permanent global cookie. You're uniquely tagged and identifiable on every website you visit.

>it's in their best interest to ensure users can't host services without them.

They'll just keep blocking port 25. IPv6 won't change anything with regards to self hosting.

farfatched 3 hours ago | parent [-]

My OS gives me IPv6 privacy addresses out-the-box which rotate every few hours.

rmunn 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Zoom in on that graph using the controls at the bottom, and you'll see a repeating pattern of crests and troughs, weekly. There's about a 5% difference between the crests and the troughs: the crests are hitting the 50% line or just below it, and the troughs are down around 45%.

The real question is, why are the crests so predictable? They're always on Saturdays; Sunday dips down a little below the crest, then Monday-Friday is down in the 45% range before the next Saturday jumps up to 50% again. (Fridays usually have a small rise, up to the 46-47% area).

My theory: mobile access rises on weekends. People are more often accessing Google services from their work computers Monday-Friday, but on Saturdays and Sundays most (not all) people are away from the office. Many of them will end up using smartphones rather than laptops for Internet access, for various reasons such as being outdoors. And since smartphones are nearly all using IPv6 these days, that means an uptick in IPv6 usage over the weekends.

kalleboo 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's not just mobile networking but residential ISPs in general have better IPv6 support. In the US, Comcast was one of the first big IPv6 deployments, in Europe CGNAT+IPv6 is common in many places.

Meanwhile corporate IT for business and education networks have less incentive to upgrade and typically lag behind in adoption in general.

neitsab 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As a French national, I am surprised to discover we are topping the charts according to this analysis.

Does anybody know why that might be the case? What's the story of IPv6 deployment in France?

timpera 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The regulatory body, ARCEP, has been very proactive since 2002 (!) on IPv6. The recent uptick is due to IPv6 obligations bundled in the 5G spectrum licences.

https://www.arcep.fr/la-regulation/grands-dossiers-internet-...

dwedge 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I worked with the internet society to mobitor ipv6 adoption for the top million sites ipv6matrix.org it's broken down by country so might answer some of your curiosity

ankit_mishra 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm wondering the same thing for India. Not the top but looks surprisingly surprisingly high. Perhaps I'm reading the data wrong.

DANmode 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Technical literacy, hacker culture, and culture of well-considered infrastructure, have been French characteristics - at least, historically.

Has something changed for the worse?

ffaser5gxlsll 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Meanwhile: one of the major mobile network in my country announced cisco collab/ipv6 ~5 years ago, but still doesn't provide v6, just v4 CGNAT.

Personal web server running dual stack since early 2010s currently sees 18-20% v6 traffic. When split by type, counting only mobile users it reaches 30% at peak.

Bot/crawler traffic is ironically 100% v4.

Meanwhile: enabled h3 in september last year for the fun of it, instantly at >40% traffic by request count, passing 50% since the beginning of the year, h2 accounting almost all the remaining traffic and plain ssl/http requests <1% being just bots.

e-topy 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

Maybe the best anti-scraper/LLM protection is going IPv6 only. I'd do that on my website, but I'm afraid some clients might not connect.

Schlagbohrer 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can someone reconcile for me the constant chatter about how IPv6 isn't getting impemented, versus this result that more than half of all traffic (as measured by google) is now IPv6?

It sounds to me like its a tool which is available to be used when needed and when no better workarounds exist, and it is slowly but surely being adopted as needed.

zokier 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This google metric measures adoption in access networks, but at this point I feel more interesting metric is adoption in services.

One such stat is here:

> adoption ranging from 71% among the top 100 to 32% in the long tail

https://commoncrawl.org/blog/ipv6-adoption-across-the-top-10...

Getting full coverage on AWS (/GCP/Azure) and few other key services (GitHub...) would be significant here imho.

loevborg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sometimes TCP/IP is a leaky abstraction, and recently ipv6 peeked through in two separate instances:

- In a cafe wifi, I had partial connectivity. For some reason my wifi interface had an ipv6 address but no ipv4 address. As a result, some sites worked just fine but github.com (which is, incredibly, ipv4-only) didn't

- I created a ipv6-only hetzner server (because it's 2026) but ended up giving up and bought a ipv6 address because lack of ipv4 access caused too many headaches. Docker didn't work with default settings (I had to switch to host networking) and package managers fail or just hang when there's no route to the host. All of which is hard to debug and gets in your way

pastage 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You can solve this issue if you have one server with ipv6/ipv4 you can run NAT with Jool and connect ipv6 only servers to that. Like Android does.

I wish hosting providers would give you a local routed ipv4 on ipv6 servers with a default NAT server. It is not that expensive I move 10Gbps "easily" and they could charge for that traffic.

zokier 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I wish hosting providers would give you a local routed ipv4 on ipv6 servers with a default NAT server.

You mean like AWS NatGW https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/vpc-nat-gat...

emj 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

30 USD/month and 0.045 USD/GB for ingress it is ok if you are big. It is a cheap service to build yourself. I do feel the pain of it being hard to get IPv4 minimal connectivity on ipv6 only hosts, i.e. for me a 1 USD/GB would be fine.

crote 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those are still per-customer and require you to dedicate an entire IP address to it. That's overkill for a server which mostly talks over ipv6 but needs to connect to an ipv4-only service like Github once in a blue moon.

loevborg an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Any services like this for Hetzner?

pjf an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

NB: this is not "IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark" but "availability of IPv6 connectivity among Google users", which is a very important difference. This means roughly half of Google users have IPv6 capability, which does not 1:1 correspond how much traffic is actually transferred over IPv6, which is what this submission says in the title.

kalleboo 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

It also means you're excluding China, who has has it as a long-term priority to deploy IPv6 and have made huge strides.

p4bl0 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It amuses me to see that according to the map, France is best in class or close to be, while just a few weeks ago, my ISP in France stopped providing me IPv6 connectivity…

The story is that at the beginning I had IPv6, and a shared dynamic IPv4 behind a CGNAT, I asked for a rollback to a full duplex static IPv4 and for three years I had both a static personal IPv4 and an IPv6. A few weeks ago my router went down and since it went back up, I no longer have an IPv6 address. I called my ISP and they explained that I could either have IPv6 or a static IPv4, but not both, and that it's abnormal that I had both for so long… welp, it's sad to see IPv6 but getting it back is not worth abandoning my static IPv4 and going back to a dynamic shared IPv4.

harg an hour ago | parent [-]

Are you with SFR? I also seem to only have a static IPv4 (I don't pay for it, but it's never changed in the lifetime of the connection). I asked for an IPv6 but they said it was not possible/difficult.

p4bl0 an hour ago | parent [-]

Yep, with "RED by SFR" specifically.

molf 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's only a matter of time before laptops get 5G. Macbooks have been rumoured for a while to get cellular modems. [1]

This will probably help adoption. On the one hand it will generate more IPv6 traffic. On the other hand it will expose more developers to IPv6; which will expose them to any lack of support for IPv6 within their own products.

[1]: https://9to5mac.com/2025/08/14/apples-first-mac-with-5g-cell...

venzaspa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Dell, HP and Lenovo have had laptops with cellular modems for maybe 15 years at this point.

theandrewbailey 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

I can confirm this. I work at an e-waste recycling company, and the vast majority of my inventory is corporate IT decommissioned gear. About 1 out of 10 laptops I tear down has a cellular modem, going back to about Intel Core 5th gen.

Glemllksdf 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thats quite surprising thing to me and weirdly obvious.

If you are single, have a phone contract, you would need some extra contract for a landline internet and wifi router because thats what a lot of people just do and now they can just add an esim and pay a little bit more.

Interesting that this sounds/feels a lot more right or useful than it did 5 years ago.

panny 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't imagine a worse privacy nightmare. Always on backdoored baseband in 5G with a unique permanent IPv6 address assigned to the machine. Okay, maybe it could be worse if each user account is assigned its own unique IPv6 perma-cookie.

imoverclocked 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The question is, "what will the graph look like in the next 10 years?"

I get the whole s-curve trend but if I squint at 2017, there is an inflection to slow the s-curve down.

Annoyingly, when setting up service with a fiber company in the last couple months, I explicitly asked about IPv6 connectivity and they said, "yes." Turns out "yes, but not in my region."

snvzz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>I explicitly asked about IPv6 connectivity and they said, "yes."

ABC, Always Be Closing.

pzo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wish EU make it mandatory at least for all ISP to make mandatory support for IPv6 by end of this decade. I think that would push the needle even globally.

Animats 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's been amazingly linear since 2014.

amazon.com needs to get with the program. Still IPv4 only.

anonymfus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Current submission title:

> IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark

Graph description:

> The graph shows the percentage of users that access Google over IPv6

There are reasons to expect both much more and much less traffic per user on IPv6 compared to IPv4...

menotyou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Currently my IPS provides IPv6, but I set up my firewall in the access router of my home LAN to block all IPv6 in both directions.

- I don't want to have a permanent global unchanged ipv6 as in id of my traffic.

- IPv6 privacy extensions would change that but then I can not reach my two devices I do want to reach from outside anymore as my access router only supports DynDNS for its own address and no NAT in IPv6

fleetfox an hour ago | parent [-]

And how exactly is your NATed ipv4 address better? This seems backwards.

menotyou an hour ago | parent [-]

Router has a DynDNS function. I am using a reverse proxy for multiple services, but this only sets up router IP and IPv4 NAT forwarding to the reverse proxy.

So what would be the correct setup with IPv6 when using privacy extensions?

I don't see any benefit in allowing IPv6 traffic or using IPv6, but a couple of new problems coming up with it.

ButlerianJihad an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the foremost obstacles to wide adoption is that IPv4 still works great and it's ubiquitous. There is no advantage or up-side to deprecating or abandoning IPv4 support at all. The only result of disabling IPv4 is a denial of service to a certain sector of customers or clients.

The only way this will change is by increasing pressure on the resource of IPv4 networks. It was a few years ago that AWS broke the news to me that I'd be paying for IPv4 addresses but IPv6 would remain free. If enough services are forced, financially, to abandon an IPv4 presence, then their clients would be likewise forced to adopt IPv6 in order to retain connectivity.

But with the ubiquity of CGNAT and other technologies, it seems unrealistic that IPv4 will become so rare that it becomes prohibitively expensive, or must be widely abandoned. So that availability of the legacy protocol will inhibit widespread adoption and transitions to IPv6.

kalleboo 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah the reality is that the Internet is centralized now. There is no reason for two computers on the internet to connect to each other anymore, as long as you can reach Google/Microsoft/Amazon/CloudFlare, that's all anyone needs.

Just log onto AOL and type in keyword "WALMART" and save! It's friendly and safe.

ifwinterco an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In theory you can save quite a bit on AWS costs by having instances that can only use v6.

But in reality at the moment there will probably always be at least one thing that only works with v4 a lot of the time.

Incentives are misaligned as well - it saves you money as the EC2 instance user, but the owner of the website you're trying to access has to support v4 anyway so they don't have a big incentive to change anything

netheril96 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe it's time to tax IPv4 usages or holders.

zeristor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My interest was piqued 20 years ago, then there was talk about Internet2 with all these amazing optimisations.

Things have developed so much, a Internet2 is still going on I take it, however is more focussed on university research.

As ever a killer strength is something that draws people to a new technology, I imagine there's various demographics that benefit from use of ipv6.

Further I imagine that there are some levels of criticality which when reached are more self sustaining (dare I say it the network effect?).

I've been posting this graph over the years, and it really has slowed down hugely close to this 50%. This is a global ipv6 support, so some countries are racing ahead, others weirdly like Denmark have a stash of ipv4 addresses and seems content.

France and Germany are at about 80%, but there's the rest of the world of course.

Galanwe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every year I just wish someone will come up with IPv4-with-more-bytes and we can switch to it before IPv6 gets another percent usage share.

AndrewDucker 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4. So you'd have to replace/upgrade every existing network stack, both hardware and software. To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6.

Galanwe 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

> IPv4-with-more-bytes is not backwards compatible with IPv4

Neither is IPv6

> To get, basically, the same effect as moving to IPv6

The only thing that IPv6 solves which is of interest to 99.99% of the users is having more adressable space. The rest of IPv6 features are either things that nobody asked for, or things which are genuinely worst compared to IPv4.

I consider the mere fact of enabling IPv6 an unacceptable security risk, as I would now have to make sure my IPv4 and IPv6 firewall stack are perfectly mirroring each other. That would be trivial with IPv4-with-more-bytes, it's a nightmare with IPv6.

blueflow an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

IPv6 is IPv4 with 12 more bytes, right?

sschueller 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My next project, IPv6 in my homelab. It will be a challenge but it is time. My ISP gives me a static /48, I should use it.

jeroenhd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I recommend going through Hurricane Electric's multiple-choice tests. It's not exactly a how-to guide or course, but it'll mention all of the terms and technologies you need to look up to get things right. They'll even send you a free T-shirt if you make it through all of them.

The most difficult parts for a homelab in my experience is getting Docker to play nicely. All of the other stuff sort of just works these days. Even things like using DHCPv6 prefix delegation to obtain a routable subnet is almost trivial with how well-supported the protocol is with modern networking software.

sschueller an hour ago | parent [-]

Where do I find that? https://www.ipv6.he.net/ has an invalid certificate and is the first result on Google.

jeroenhd an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Their www sub-subdomain is broken it seems.

https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ has instructions on how to get started.

elevendroids an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You need to omit the "www" subdomain: https://ipv6.he.net

BartjeD 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In before the dinosaurs arrive to complain about the challenges of moving to IPv6 and why NAT and IPv4 are better. ;)

jabl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are any ISP's or corp intranets doing IPv6-mostly style networks yet: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-link-v6ops-6mops-00.ht...

That seems to be a promising approach.

farfatched 2 hours ago | parent [-]

According to https://www.ipv6.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/13_IPv6-M... , Google is.

The author of the RFC is the author of the slides.

jwilliams 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm surprised it's reporting is listed <5% - I thought it was pretty much ipv6 first?

Mashimo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder why Germany has a relative high adoption rate with 77%? They are normally behind when it comes to new technology.

Is it because they have more carrier NAT?

In Denmark I can get cheap 1 / 1 Gbit/s fiber, but still no ipv6 :(

FeelingGood 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

We have enough IPv4 addresses (combined with CGNAT) in Denmark so the providers have no business incentive to spend money on supporting IPv6 :/

ahartmetz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Carrier-grade NAT for home connections is pretty rare in Germany. I only know of Deutsche Glasfaser - a fairly new ISP that isn't doing too well.

interloxia 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

Vodafone cable's cgnat struggles. I went v6 for home so that at least the v6 sites and my own connections avoid the congestion.

torcete an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They have released the draft for IPv8 two days ago: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html

Does it mean we better put our chips on IPv8?

badgersnake a few seconds ago | parent [-]

Guess you didn’t read it.

ghoshbishakh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Countries like India have higher adoption (>70%) because of 4G/5G abundance. Legacy broadband providers hold back IPv6 usage.

ruuda 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Finally https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9558/50-of-users-access-... can resolve!

zeristor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the global curve, it looks to be flattening I had thought it would be more asymptotic to 100%.

My company is ipv4 still, and some customers are having issues with ipv6 only connections.

Also we log the ip addresses, and that's only in ipv4.

jl6 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone's saying progress is slow, but maybe this is just how long it takes to do massive decentralized global migrations affecting billions of people. What are we comparing against? Maybe the ICE-to-EV transition?

davidkuennen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Setting up my own server (migrating off GCP LB) taught me so much about networking. I was especially surprised that providing IPv6 is such a performance boost for low bandwidth phones since they mostly only operate on IPv6 by now and IPv4 needs some sort of special roundtrip.

emj 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Cool! Could you give some concrete examples of apps or traffic patterns where you think IPv6 may noticeably improve performance on phones? Are you mainly referring to NAT traversal during connection setup, or to something that also affects traffic after the connection is established?

harg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interesting to see Spain having such low IPv6 adoption. Perhaps that's exacerbated the issues caused there by blocking IPs during football matches that we've seen mentioned in recent HN posts.

cubefox 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Spain: 9.9%

What's going on in Spain?

pheggs 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

while it looks like its slowing down, I am pretty sure it will speed up once IPv4 get even more expensive, sites start to be hosted on IPv6 only and become inaccessible to some users that dont have IPv4. Thats surely going to put pressure on ISPs

usui 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Outside of hobbyist niche uses, sites won't start being hosted IPv6-only. The financialization of IPv4 addresses will simply get worse and be even more pay-to-play than it is now. Amazon raises the price of IPv4 and everyone goes along as a cost of doing business.

zokier 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My prediction is that sites will be half-IPv6 only; backends will be IPv6 and IPv4 traffic will get proxied to IPv6 by CDNs / edge LBs. I think CloudFront for example supports that scenario, avoiding IPv4 costs (in theory).

elsjaako 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you have a big site and want as broad an access as possible I agree.

But I wouldn't be surpised if we start seeing self-hosted minecraft or factorio servers with ipv6 only.

pheggs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

that may be true, but not being able to access hobbyist sites still feels like "being locked out" of something. My ISP provides /48 IPv6 addresses for free, and I already run a couple sites only on IPv6 - because an IPv4 would cost 20 bucks a month - it's not important enough to me personally to pay that.

snvzz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe "think of the children."

There might be a child behind the NAT, thus IPv6 requirement.

jeroenhd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

With IPv6 privacy extensions it's impossible to tell which device you're talking to inside of a /64. You'd need to do something silly like DHCPv6 to get that kind of remote device-level tracking.

everdrive an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am waiting for the flood of evangelist to explain:

- IPv6 proponents are the only ones who know that NAT is not a firewall, and

- Everyone in the world would love IPv6 if they just didn't hate learning new things

gauravkundu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Waiting for github to support

ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At home, I use an Android 16 Pixel phone, and a Chromebook, and I would suspect (but cannot prove) that 100% of my LAN outages can be blamed on the dual-stacking nature of IPv6 plus IPv4.

Chris Siebenmann has written extensively on IPv6: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/?search=ipv6

Google has some weird way of asserting connectivity, and I suspect that when connectivity on one protocol is lost, it is impossible to maintain or establish connectivity through the other one (IPv6) even if it is available upstream.

I am rather infuriated with the status quo at this point, because it is impossible to disable IPv6 on my devices and it is also impossible for my ISP to disable IPv6 on my LAN or on the CPE router which they own and control.

Due to chronic WiFi issues I was eventually forced to place my ISP router into Bridge mode permanently, and I use a 3rd party Netgear which I own, and does not have the same WiFi issues, and where IPv6 is optional (and often fails, because its implementation is buggy and glitchy for no reason.)

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I am rather infuriated that it's impossible to disable IPv4 on my devices, so does that make us even?

ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes I believe so!

I recently purchased a brand-new LaserJet printer, and since it needs nothing to do with the Internet or a WAN outside my home, I thought it'd be great to simply disable IPv4 and stop doing the DHCP dance.

Well it immediately fell off the net completely. I couldn't figure out how to expose its IPv6 address or contact its management interface.

Hypothetically, Bonjour and mDNS should make this a no-brainer. Hypothetically, disabling IPv4 shouldn't even prevent it from connecting to the Internet. But I was ultimately forced to factory-reset it.

IPv6-only LAN makes a lot of sense for most people, and perhaps reduces attack surface a little. If you have the means, I highly recommend setting it up!

spl757 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like it's time to abandon it for something new and more stupid

spl757 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

90% spam/hack?

miyuru 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

crossed 50% on Mar 28, 2026, 3 weekends back.

google published the latest data only yesterday, hence the delay.

randompartytime 4 hours ago | parent [-]

we did it, boys!

despite the smoothbrain naysayers:

https://circleid.com/posts/20190529_digging_into_ipv6_traffi...

finally, the end of the dark tunnel of NAT is in sight, and the internet will be free once more

moralestapia 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any idea why it oscillates?

kalleboo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Corporate IT networks have less IPv6 and residential/mobile networks have more IPv6, so on weekdays when people are using Internet at work = more IPv4, weekends when people are using Internet at home = more IPv6. Christmas also has a big bump for the same reason.

cubefox 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nice. But note that the average is still significantly below 50%. It's also a bit concerning that the growth rate seems to be levelling off. It currently looks like a sigmoid curve with a maximum far below 100%.

gspr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I wouldn't be so worried about it. It's really hard for something as big as this to really hit 100%. If we hit 80% or thereabouts, we can at least plausibly argue to backwards ISPs that IPv6 is the default and the standard that everyone should reasonably be offering.

Generally: I'm really surprised that Norway is just at 27%. I think I've been with 3 different residential ISPs the last 15 years, and all of them have done IPv6 perfectly well (two nits: I think one required a trivial opt-in, and my current ISP is just giving me /60 which isn't perfect).

Edit: Oops, sorry to my current ISP for shaming them. Some googling told me that one can get a /56 using DHCPv6-PD. I'll try that!

UltraSane 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every company I have ever worked for in the US didn't use IPv6 and actually blocked it at the FW

lmm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The US has something like 80% of the world's IPv4 addresses, so they feel a lot less pressure to migrate.

zokier 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

US is significantly above average in terms of adoption

UltraSane 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I worked for a state government agency that had a public /16

SuperMouse 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Our freaky network admins rolled it out in our global corpo.

Was fun seeing IPv6 running for a few days without problems.

ymolodtsov 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But I still have to pay Hetzner separately to rent out an IPv4.

purerandomness 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IPv6 will never make it. Maybe IPv8 [0], which IPv6 should have actually looked like:

> 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

[0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-thain-ipv8-00.html

josh3736 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For observers, this draft was posted to HN earlier but quickly flagged and removed because the linked "IPv8" draft is absolute bunk.

See the removed thread for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47788857

po1nt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nice idea. Always wondered why IPv6 went so ambitious with the addressing

Ekaros 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Might as well go big. 24 extra bytes per packet is not that big deal. And having that much extra space means you can screw up design multiple times and still be able to reuse lot of infra. Also getting rid of idea that you are even trying to manually manage the address space eases many things.

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do people keep proposing alternatives to IPv6 that are no easier than IPv6 but still require the whole world to start the deployment over from 0%?

c0l0 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd say it's either because they're just having fun, or because they're dumb.