Comment by kstrauser 20 hours ago
Outstanding. As Google’s IPv6 traffic portion approaches 50% (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) it’s clear IPv6 is here, now, today. I wouldn’t dream of launching a new public-facing greenfield project without it.
Fun fact: US government agencies are required to progressively migrate to IPv6-only environment, beginning with completing at least one pilot of IPv6-only system by FY 2021: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-0.... Apparently, National Archives decided to pick archived Clinton White House website for this: https://clintonwhitehouse1.archives.gov/
I didn't recommend dropping IPv4. It's a terrible it to start a new project in 2024 without IPv6 support though. It's easy enough to build in from the beginning that there's not any real reason not to go for it.
And running a dual stack is trivially easy for almost everyone using it. That chart has almost half of Google's users coming in via IPv6. I promise you less than 1% of that 50% have ever even heard of IPv6, let alone done a single thing to configure it. With my ISP I'd have to go out of my way to turn it off, which I haven't done because this isn't 2008 where it broke things more often than never.
> It's a terrible it to start a new project in 2024 without IPv6 support though.
Why? Radical complexity reduction at essentially no cost to yourself or your customers seems like a tempting proposition.
Exactly! IPv4 management is hideous compared to IPv6 once you grok it. The sooner you upgrade to it, the sooner you can deprecate horrid mitigations like NAT.
Depends on your users; there are, for instance, plenty of phones that only natively have v6 and have to use NAT64 to reach v4 websites. So if you have such users, there might be a benefit to supporting v6 directly.
> Nothing's realistically dropping support for v4 any time soon […]
Or potentially ever, as predicted when IPng was being originally thought about:
We believe that it is not possible to have a "flag-day" form of
transition in which all hosts and routers must change over at
once. The size, complexity, and distributed administration of the
Internet make such a cutover impossible.
Rather, IPng will need to co-exist with IPv4 for some period of
time. There are a number of ways to achieve this co-existence
such as requiring hosts to support two stacks, converting between
protocols, or using backward compatible extensions to IPv4. Each
scheme has its strengths and weaknesses, which have to be weighed.
Furthermore, we note that, in all probability, there will be IPv4
hosts on the Internet effectively forever. IPng must provide
mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng
has become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet.
IPv4 at the edge and call it a day.
Why build today with deprecated technology ? Build your infra v6-only, add a layer at the edge to support old clients via IPv4. Job's done.
You should design your infrastructure to avoid paying too much for other people's legacy.
I personally push for IPv6-only internal networks whenever possible, and have deployed several such designs in datacenters.
Unfortunately, a lot of applications are building on platforms where IPv6 is an afterthought if even present at all. Take for example Azure, where IPv6 support is a fucking joke. From core services like Route Server not supporting it, to it being impossible to build v6-only networks due to forced v4 subnet and vNIC requirements, to many services that Microsoft provides only running on v4.
As much as I want to push IPv6 everywhere, that physically cannot happen until companies support it for all use cases. In the mean time dual stacking can be better than nothing but the complexity is non-trivial when the alternative is just running straight v4...
IMO the separate-stack nature of ipv6 was a mistake. I can see why they did it, but the changes could've been a lot more incremental otherwise, and we might've been done already. Everyone talks about the biggest change being the 128-bit address space, but the real leap is that pre-existing ipv4 blocks weren't preserved in ipv6.
The changes couldn’t have been more incremental. Routing hardware only understood the IPv4 header (and at that time I believe a lot of this was baked in silicon). There was no way to create an IPv4+ without needing to replace all the internet’s routers before it could reliably work.
How would have it made it easier to migrate when all of the new blocks wouldn’t be accessible (in either direction) if the traffic passed through any router that hadn’t yet been upgraded? Nobody could really use any of the extended space at all until every single router had been upgraded to this IPv4+.
It is a common misunderstanding (I hear “we could have just made IPv4 bigger” a lot) but apart from the routing issues above (needing to replace every router before it could work at all), the endpoints are also a problem. Nothing in the expanded space could actually call out to a legacy IPv4 endpoint - it could sent packets to it, but that legacy host wouldn’t be able to return packets back since it wouldn’t understand the larger address. And of course the legacy endpoint couldn’t initiate a connection to anything in the extended space either from its side.
So you not only have all the same problems of IPv6 (like needing to upgrade everything), you actually add a bunch of problems of breaking the ability of big parts of the internet from being able to communicate with the rest.
Dual-stack was necessary because everything couldn’t be switched over on the same day. If everything was upgraded at once, your extended-IPv4 idea would work, but otherwise it would break the internet!
I'm on a laptop on an ipv6 only subnet at the moment which mostly does the job with dn64/nat64.
The only benefit of this is to increase familiarity with ipv6. I'm trying to push some colleagues to do an ipv6 only section of our network which has limited interconnect, but there's a lot of concern about devices that still don't support ipv6, and ultimately what's the business reason to do it compared with subnetting 10.0/8 and natting at your firewalls
And many people are happy to not know what an IP address is either. That's fine.
I find it amazing how that lack of curiosity about how computers work extends into modern software developers, I guess that the majority of the industry nowadays are people that do things like "bootcamps" and go into it for the money.
I have no need for ipv6, however I wanted to know about it so spent a couple of hours setting myself up with it. I don't bother with the latest fads that last 3 or 4 years and then are replaced by a new fad, but ipv6 has been around long enough that it's clearly not a fad.
IPv4 stuff is accessible over IPv6. It's just the other way around that is not the case.
Not by default it’s not. An ipv6-only deployment cannot natively access an ipv4 network, there is no backwards comparability in the protocol.
I'm pretty sure we're discussing about connecting to the Internet.
What I understood is being implied is that ipv6 has little utility if it cannot access ipv4, but is not the case the other way around.
I keep seeing people say this, but nobody ever takes the next step of proposing how this "missed opportunity" might have been fixed.
The reality is that there is no possible way IPv6 could have been designed that would both solve the IPv4 address exhaustion problem and natively interoperate with IPv4. When you send a packet to an IPv4 host, it needs to know where to send the response, and there simply aren't enough bits in the IPv4 header to fit more than 2^32 possible addresses.
You need something in the middle to translate between IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, and we already have that: it's called NAT64. It works the same way you would expect NAT to, and just like NAT on IPv4, there's no need to codify it as an explicit part of the IP protocol itself.
The fact that a company like monopolistic, abusive, privacy invading company like Google that desperately desperately wants me to run ipv6, ensures that I will disable it on every device I own and corporate network I run.
This is like boycotting 5G cell phones because you don't like Verizon.
>They want you to run IPv4 too.
Exactly.
I'd expect that they don't much care which version of IP you use, as long as they can show you ads -- which is their business model after all.
I… think that at the end of the day, Google wants you to run v6.
Google competes with Facebook. Facebook wants sites to host Facebook Pages and such, which needs no IP addresses. Google wants lots of websites and other services on an open web, to which it can sell lots of ads, and for which it can run a good search engine that again brings in lots of opportunities. A lack of IP addresses isn't a problem for Facebook, but it is one for people who want to host new web sites and other services. And therefore Google wants to alleviate that problem, with which IPv6 can help.
You've perhaps seen the Onion article whose headline goes something like "Heartbreaking: The Worst Man You Know Just Made An Excellent Point"?
You're simply kneecapping yourself if you refuse to learn how to acknowledge and incorporate good ideas that happened to be uttered by execrable entities.
Excellent logic! Hitler drank water and, if you had the chance to ask him, he would have likely suggested you also drink water. Does that mean you won't drink water now?
If Hitler was pushing a new kind of water which he argued was superior to the old water you've been drinking all your life, maybe some skepticism would be warranted?
I'm not saying that "I will disable v6 because Google wants me to enable v6" is a good argument, but your rebuttal is pretty bad as well.
Calm down. Please try to make your point less flamboyantly.
Nothing's realistically dropping support for v4 any time soon, so v6 support is optional. On the other hand, we're far, far away from all users supporting v6, so v4 support is not optional.
Running a single IP stack is infinitely simpler and easier than running two concurrently, and until that "single IP stack" can be v6, I see very little reason to support it.