
Major Mobile US Networks Pass 50% IPv6 Threshold for IPv6-Enabled Hosts - okket
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/major-mobile-us-networks-pass-50-ipv6-threshold/
======
colanderman
Unless I'm misreading the confusingly-worded press announcement, this is 50%
of traffic _to IPv6-enabled hosts_. Big difference.

~~~
cft
IPv6 enabled hosts include Google and Facebook, so I'd guess that's a lot of
traffic.

~~~
tomschlick
and netflix

~~~
lwhalen
My understanding was that Netflix was 100% AWS, and AWS' implementation of
IPv6 was very limited and pretty much to the ELB only.

~~~
paulddraper
But other parts of AWS are often not public facing anyway.

------
rmdoss
Don't think their numbers are right.

I manage 3 different sites with AAAA and A records.

site 1: tech site: 12% of the traffic is via IPv6

site 2: mixed/funny site: 7% is IPv6

site 3: company site: 9% is IPv6

I asked around a few friends and all of them with IPv6-enabled sites have
around 5-15% of their traffic via IPv6.

Even Google sees 14%:

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

Can't believe this 50% number.

~~~
necubi
Those are world-wide numbers. Google reports 30% for the US:
[https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...](https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-
country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption).

~~~
samuellb
Yes, it's quite different in different countries.

My web server gets only 3,9% IPv6 traffic (based on counting unique IPs).
Quite OK given that none of the major ISPs in my country offer IPv6 (neither
on broadband or on mobile). Even for businesses it can be hard to get native
IPv6 here.

------
kyledrake
Unfortunately, amazingly, Android still does not support DHCPv6 so that you
can take advantage of it. [http://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-
of-dhcpv6-...](http://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-
dhcpv6-support-poses-security-and-ipv6-deployment-issues/)

~~~
mangix
is this even an issue? dnsmasq(which most routers use) for example supports
both.

~~~
kyledrake
Yes, it's an issue. My router cannot assign an IPv6 address to my phone if my
phone can't ask for one.

~~~
wmf
If you really want IPv6 to work, enable SLAAC.

~~~
jeff_marshall
How are you getting DNS configuration (server + search domain) via SLAAC?

~~~
okket
With the RDNSS + DNSSL options for Router Advertisement (RFC standard since
2010), described here:

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106#section-5](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106#section-5)

If you know a RA implementation that does not support this, please tell.

~~~
fulafel
Or IPv4 DHCP, if you're not IPv6-only.

~~~
okket
You might not want to rely on a soon to be declared historic protocol for
essential network configuration...

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-
sunset4-v4historic-...](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-
sunset4-v4historic-00)

(This draft will probably expire, but shots are fired)

Edit: Here is a PDF that describes what deprecating IPv4 means

[http://ipv6.sa/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/IPv4_historic.pdf](http://ipv6.sa/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/IPv4_historic.pdf)

------
IgorPartola
So if I grab a SIM card from T-Mobile or AT&T and put it in my iPhone, will I
actually get an IPv6 address? What about Verizon and Sprint? This is actually
a valid use case for me as a way to access stuff at home while I am remote.

~~~
okket
Yes. But since too many sites still are only reachable via IPv4, you either
get also an IPv4 address (dual stack) or you get connectivity via NAT64/DNS64.
The latter case means your phone cannot be reached from the outside via IPv4
(this is rarely needed on a phone, except when tethering a laptop, maybe).

~~~
IgorPartola
I am well aware of all that. I have been deploying IPv6 sites for a while now.
I was more curious if there was any movement towards mobile devices getting
IPv6. I am stuck with AT&T for a month longer or so and so I was wondering
which carries actually support what I need. Last I checked AT&T did not, but
that was over a year ago.

~~~
mdani
I have seen IPv6 addresses allocated to some ATT UEs. Not sure what was the
percentage. Go here from the handset and check again? [http://test-
ipv6.com](http://test-ipv6.com)

------
sandstrom
Too bad AWS, Azure and Google Cloud have patchy to zero IPv6 support.

~~~
StillBored
I have a ipv6 only vlan/SSID at home, pretty much nothing works outside of
ipv6.google.com without nat64/dns64.

It actually seems like its getting worse since world ipv6 day. www.bing.com
literally turned it on for one day, then turned it off. Smaller sites seem to
have left it on, but then forgotten that fact and over time more and more of
them seem to have fallen offline/etc.

Then there are all the 1/2 ass implementations. My router is ipv6 enabled
(edgeOS), but that means you get a GUI for configuring/viewing ipv4, and a
command line for ipv6. My ISP has a 1 IP rule, even though they claim dual
stack support, I can get either IPV6 or IPV4, not both simultaneously (even
though the ipv6 is a block of IPs). Ugh...

~~~
voltagex_
It's definitely getting worse.

Internode are one of the only residential ISPs in Australia offering IPv6.
They got bought by iiNet who still haven't deployed IPv6, who then got bought
by TPG who are far more likely to put their entire customer base behind a
single IP/CGNAT.

------
sucuri2
50% of all traffic to the dual stack hosts are going via IPv6. That's expected
as most dual stack clients favour IPv6 over IPv4.

------
shmerl
Why are wireline providers still lagging with supporting it?

~~~
drdaeman
Because lack of demand and because v4 NAT still works.

Other reasons may vary from company to company. Sometimes, because first
experiments with v6 were failures (users reported connectivity issues - remote
systems weren't working well, but it's ISP who gets the blame). And sometimes
because proper v6 deployment takes a significant effort even if a company's
lucky that the existing software was written with some v6 support in mind.

Most users don't even know what "IP address" actually is (they know the words
and, in best case, that it's some numbers), not that it has "versions" or
anything.

I believe mobile carriers need v6, as they have way too many always-connected
devices on the network. Cable companies have more breathing space in this
regard.

Source: used to work in a small(er) FTTH ISP company, and still keep in touch
with them on some occasions.

~~~
shmerl
_> Because lack of demand and because v4 NAT still works._

In a sense it's catch 22. To increase demand, ISPs should support IPv6.
Otherwise everyone is forced to support IPv4 for their sites and services, and
why would users demand ISPs to support IPv6 if sites and services work
anyway?...

The problem is, NAT doesn't work. I.e. it kind of works, but it's a huge pain
and cost to support for anyone who has to deal with it (from development
standpoint). In essence, it's a monstrosity which only magnifies the problem
by delaying the global switch.

So essentially in order to solve this, everyone should be putting an effort
into enabling IPv6, and if someone waits for others to demand it, they are
harming the whole transition.

------
rietta
So is it the Year of IPv6 yet?

I've been hearing about this going mainstream for 13 years. I've been setting
up servers to be dual homed with both IPv4 and IPv6 for years but so many
people/companies don't even bother adding the IPv6 addresses as AAAA records
in their DNS even when the servers support it.

But it's here. Exciting!

