8 ms·

Thanks for testing, in year 2026, still IPv6 is not fully well utilized homes, corporates especially it is worse at clouds (AWS, GCP) if you not limit north to

Thanks for testing, in year 2026, still IPv6 is not fully well utilized homes, corporates especially it is worse at clouds (AWS, GCP) if you not limit north to south, they are not good for east-to-west compared to telco providers. For example, GCP uses IP forwarding for IPv6 real IP address is not allocated at machine. At some of the components which is EKS is not support every case at IPv6. So IPv8 can be available around year 2300 I guess :) (i have not inspected v8 RFC yet)

clhodapp 1mo ago
IPv8 is just a reactionary response to IPv6 not being "IPv4 with larger addresses" like people who know IPv4 well would prefer. There would be no reason to adopt it if IPv6 were adopted.
- hdgvhicv 1mo ago
  Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. For decades. Because it wasn’t implemented transparently at the OS. I can’t plug in to my ip6 only network and reach an ip4 address because end user OSes don’t implement clat transparently, even today in 2026, let alone 20 years ago.
  - adw 1mo ago
    > Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. news to literally anyone on a mobile internet connection (which is most internet connections!)
    - alexpotato 1mo ago
      I learned recently that France IPv6 adoption is also very high.
    - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
      I’m on 4g My v6 endpoint is unreachable. My v4 one is fine.
    - ahmetozer 29d ago
      Yes you can able to see IPv6 at your browser, but actualy there is always middlewhere sofware level (NLB, ALB, NAT) to reach real backend server, which creates bottle neck. For large scale enterprises this creates issue, even for cloudproviders, I have encountered bottle neck at some Major cloudprovider which causes snowball impact to whole cluster retry mechanisms and 4 hours outage for us and some other customers :D if the 2 enterpise has machine to machine IPv6 connectivity, this is will not happend.
  - jrmg 1mo ago
    Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. Well over half of Google’s traffic is IPv6 in the USA, and it’s recently become over 50% of all Google’s traffic worldwide at weekends. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
  - dotwaffle 1mo ago
    > Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. For decades. I'd argue it has, but that's not the point. IPv4 is pretty much mandatory for most users of the internet. Yes, individual users probably neither know nor core whether they're on IPv4 or IPv6, but it's so difficult to run IPv6-only that you just wouldn't bother. Trying to teach someone about how to use ULA vs. GUA only leads to headaches. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the reason why the internet became so ubiquitous was because of NAT -- static internal addressing is pretty much fundamental to an easy-to-use experience. Having multiple addresses on a host only makes things far more confusing, so people don't bother, because IPv4 just works.
- torginus 1mo ago
  Imo the insistence on 'no NAT' has killed IPv6, as it made talking to legacy IPv4 nodes very awkward. If it could interop well with v4, then the transition wouldn't be all or nothing. And it turns out the simplicity of 'no NAT' still buys you nothing. It's very common for modern systems to run multiple network interfaces with connections having to be juggled between them. In that case, connection and session management falls to a higher level protocol, often in the application.
  - clhodapp 1mo ago
    Hrm, but the insistence is more "NAT should not be a practical requirement in a pure IPv6 network", not "No NAT ever for any reason". NAT-based compatibility strategies are widely deployed in the real world (most cell carriers and Google's IPv6-mostly corporate network use NAT to allow communication with the IPv4 world from IPv6 only devices).
  - Dagger2 1mo ago
    NAT is accepted for transition purposes; for example NAT64 makes it trivial to connect from v6-only clients to v4 servers, and is used by some large ISPs (e.g. T-Mobile in the US) to avoid running v4 inside their access network.
simoncion 1mo ago
> ...in year 2026, still IPv6 is not fully well utilized... Eh. It took quite a long time, but even HN has a v6 address these days: $ dig +short news.ycombinator.com ANY 2606:7100:1:67::26 209.216.230.207
- freeone3000 1mo ago
  That's great! I still don't, on any residential carrier I can purchase from.
  - simoncion 1mo ago
    > I still don't, on any residential carrier I can purchase from. That's a bummer! Contrariwise, this USian has had solid IPv6 service from every ISP I've gotten residential service from for more than a decade now.
ButlerianJihad 1mo ago
If IPv6 were wholeheartedly "adopted" then I and most consumers would not require "dual-stack" at home. Dual-stack is a terrible curse and a hack. IPv4 NAT is likewise a curse and a hack. We are left with these legacy curses only because the world can't seem to adopt IPv6. You don't need to abolish IPv4 to do it, you just need to get AAAA records and support the protocol! If you run a server or a public network, and you're not reachable by IPv6 in 2026, you're part of the problem. I would not need "a home LAN" at home; I would not need "Private IP address space"; I would not need NATing router technology; my router software and configuration would be far, far simpler if my devices were able to single-stack. I believe the source of a lot of connectivity errors and difficult Heisenbugs involve dual-stack problems. My devices don't need lateral connectivity on the LAN except for the printer. I attempted shutting off IPv4 on the printer and it dropped off entirely. I can't understand that. It doesn't need to reach the outside world for any reason. My Chromebook and Android don't speak to each other, except for Quick Share, which shouldn't require IPv4 addressing. Has anyone devised a protocol or scheme by which an IPv6-only device can seamlessly access IPv4-only devices through their ISP and not local support? In other words, opportunistically intercept connection attempts and interpose a tunnel? It seems like this would be a final component to just killing off IPv4, en masse, in people's homes.
- wmf 1mo ago
  a protocol or scheme by which an IPv6-only device can seamlessly access IPv4-only devices NAT64 which is used extensively in cellular networks.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ButlerianJihad 1mo ago
    It is unclear whether this requires cooperation or knowledge on the IPv6-only side. It says it can be deployed to service providers. Do my IPv6 clients need to be NAT64 aware to participate? Or can this be transparently implemented to furnish IPv4 connectivity where normally it would just be an error? That's the sort of model I'm thinking of.

clhodapp 1mo ago

IPv8 is just a reactionary response to IPv6 not being "IPv4 with larger addresses" like people who know IPv4 well would prefer. There would be no reason to adopt it if IPv6 were adopted.

hdgvhicv 1mo ago
Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. For decades. Because it wasn’t implemented transparently at the OS. I can’t plug in to my ip6 only network and reach an ip4 address because end user OSes don’t implement clat transparently, even today in 2026, let alone 20 years ago.
- adw 1mo ago
  > Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. news to literally anyone on a mobile internet connection (which is most internet connections!)
  - alexpotato 1mo ago
    I learned recently that France IPv6 adoption is also very high.
  - hdgvhicv 1mo ago
    I’m on 4g My v6 endpoint is unreachable. My v4 one is fine.
  - ahmetozer 29d ago
    Yes you can able to see IPv6 at your browser, but actualy there is always middlewhere sofware level (NLB, ALB, NAT) to reach real backend server, which creates bottle neck. For large scale enterprises this creates issue, even for cloudproviders, I have encountered bottle neck at some Major cloudprovider which causes snowball impact to whole cluster retry mechanisms and 4 hours outage for us and some other customers :D if the 2 enterpise has machine to machine IPv6 connectivity, this is will not happend.
- jrmg 1mo ago
  Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. Well over half of Google’s traffic is IPv6 in the USA, and it’s recently become over 50% of all Google’s traffic worldwide at weekends. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
- dotwaffle 1mo ago
  > Yet IPv6 hasn’t been adopted. For decades. I'd argue it has, but that's not the point. IPv4 is pretty much mandatory for most users of the internet. Yes, individual users probably neither know nor core whether they're on IPv4 or IPv6, but it's so difficult to run IPv6-only that you just wouldn't bother. Trying to teach someone about how to use ULA vs. GUA only leads to headaches. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the reason why the internet became so ubiquitous was because of NAT -- static internal addressing is pretty much fundamental to an easy-to-use experience. Having multiple addresses on a host only makes things far more confusing, so people don't bother, because IPv4 just works.
torginus 1mo ago
Imo the insistence on 'no NAT' has killed IPv6, as it made talking to legacy IPv4 nodes very awkward. If it could interop well with v4, then the transition wouldn't be all or nothing. And it turns out the simplicity of 'no NAT' still buys you nothing. It's very common for modern systems to run multiple network interfaces with connections having to be juggled between them. In that case, connection and session management falls to a higher level protocol, often in the application.
- clhodapp 1mo ago
  Hrm, but the insistence is more "NAT should not be a practical requirement in a pure IPv6 network", not "No NAT ever for any reason". NAT-based compatibility strategies are widely deployed in the real world (most cell carriers and Google's IPv6-mostly corporate network use NAT to allow communication with the IPv4 world from IPv6 only devices).
- Dagger2 1mo ago
  NAT is accepted for transition purposes; for example NAT64 makes it trivial to connect from v6-only clients to v4 servers, and is used by some large ISPs (e.g. T-Mobile in the US) to avoid running v4 inside their access network.

simoncion 1mo ago

> ...in year 2026, still IPv6 is not fully well utilized... Eh. It took quite a long time, but even HN has a v6 address these days: $ dig +short news.ycombinator.com ANY 2606:7100:1:67::26 209.216.230.207

freeone3000 1mo ago
That's great! I still don't, on any residential carrier I can purchase from.
- simoncion 1mo ago
  > I still don't, on any residential carrier I can purchase from. That's a bummer! Contrariwise, this USian has had solid IPv6 service from every ISP I've gotten residential service from for more than a decade now.

ButlerianJihad 1mo ago

If IPv6 were wholeheartedly "adopted" then I and most consumers would not require "dual-stack" at home. Dual-stack is a terrible curse and a hack. IPv4 NAT is likewise a curse and a hack. We are left with these legacy curses only because the world can't seem to adopt IPv6. You don't need to abolish IPv4 to do it, you just need to get AAAA records and support the protocol! If you run a server or a public network, and you're not reachable by IPv6 in 2026, you're part of the problem. I would not need "a home LAN" at home; I would not need "Private IP address space"; I would not need NATing router technology; my router software and configuration would be far, far simpler if my devices were able to single-stack. I believe the source of a lot of connectivity errors and difficult Heisenbugs involve dual-stack problems. My devices don't need lateral connectivity on the LAN except for the printer. I attempted shutting off IPv4 on the printer and it dropped off entirely. I can't understand that. It doesn't need to reach the outside world for any reason. My Chromebook and Android don't speak to each other, except for Quick Share, which shouldn't require IPv4 addressing. Has anyone devised a protocol or scheme by which an IPv6-only device can seamlessly access IPv4-only devices through their ISP and not local support? In other words, opportunistically intercept connection attempts and interpose a tunnel? It seems like this would be a final component to just killing off IPv4, en masse, in people's homes.

wmf 1mo ago
a protocol or scheme by which an IPv6-only device can seamlessly access IPv4-only devices NAT64 which is used extensively in cellular networks.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- ButlerianJihad 1mo ago
  It is unclear whether this requires cooperation or knowledge on the IPv6-only side. It says it can be deployed to service providers. Do my IPv6 clients need to be NAT64 aware to participate? Or can this be transparently implemented to furnish IPv4 connectivity where normally it would just be an error? That's the sort of model I'm thinking of.