Cloudflare sees over 40%, and it hasn't gone up in the last year even with the overall traffic increase. Personally, as the APNIC article also says about their own observations, I guess the overall adoption is somewhere in between.
But we have to remember that this reflects the adoption on the client side. With many high profile services still IPv4-only, the fraction of IPv6 flowing on the public Internet might be much lower.
I wonder what incentives are needed to push this forward, because it's not the same incentives as years ago for sure. We've long since exhausted new IPv4 allocations.
If we're looking at the portion of traffic, most of the big bandwidth heavy services (the video streaming sites and CDNs) are on IPv6, the long tail of IPv4-only services tend to be lower bandwidth stuff.
I believe one big anti-incentive is rate limiting, especially nowadays. With IPv4 getting a range ban is somewhat effective, way less effective on ipv6 (theres a reason HE tunnelbroker is marked bad nowadays, discord bots doing music load balance over ips on tunnelbroker for pulling youtube audio data.. they ban a /64 but you balance over a /48 or bigger). I believe this was the main reason Discord disabled IPv6 (not sure if thats still the case, but it was back in the day since bans and api rate limiting was ip based).
It's difficult for servers to know how big client allocations are. With v4, pretty much everybody got /32s, but with v6, sizes vary. So you've got to start with small bans, and then switch to big bans later, but not too aggressively so you don't accidentally ban legitimate customers. It's a tricky balance.
You have to do that with range bans in v4 too, since you have no idea how big the pool of addresses a user can pull from is -- and with CGNAT in the picture you're kind of doomed to banning legitimate customers on v4 no matter what you do.
Yes, you ban some legitimate customers with v4. But the span between the smallest allocations and biggest allocations is much smaller, so simple strategies (like banning the bad address) scale further.
I think the span would be about the same, or smaller even, if you limited yourself to a granularity of 4 bits for v6. Allocations are often rounded to 4 bits in v6 because it correlates to exactly one character of the v6 address.
I'd also like to note that being worried about accidental overbanning in v6 but then being dismissive of it in v4 is a double standard.
UX issue, and UX issues are often downplayed by engineers, leading to adoption failures.
Another such example is SELinux, which would have prevented so many vulnerabilities from being exploited, but whose poor UX also caused everyone to disable it at install time.
SELinux's UX was significantly improved many years later, but already too late to change ingrained opinions. There are a lot of ingrained opinions about IPv6 too.
Conversely it means people who have ISPs that do IPv6 just have IPv6 and don't need to turn it off. Because it just works. The other day my IPv4 was down and I didn't even notice.
Most of what people see as "SELinux" is actually the default policy, which started out as way too strict. Then SELinux-enabled distros such as Red Hat moved to a policy that only applies to system services, and leaves user-launched binaries as if SELinux was disabled.
And even for system services, you can disable SELinux for one service (permissive mode) and leave it enabled for the rest.
This has been the case for more than 10 years, but the damage was done. It's now very hard for users even considering learning the basics (which are not hard).
There are maybe many buggy routers still out there that reset the IPv6 flow label field when they shouldn't, breaking hash-based load-balancers (the symptom is TCP connections spontaneously reset).
IIRC, a workaround was to prevent Linux from setting this field, or force-reset it on every outbound packet using netfilter.
Nothing to worry about. They don't need to learn anything anyway. Anything they would do in the future will be done by agentic AI, and generative AI will produce all the content they could possibly consume. They will be free to spend all day on their phones.
Perhaps it's important to point out that socialism != communism.
I think this is something the US really doesn't understand about Europe.
Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).
In fact, US capitalism is much closer to communism regarding societal outcomes (social injustice, power concentration) than European socialism. It is very much possible to be anti-capitalist and anti-communist at the same time .
Unsere Geschichte ist geprägt von der Idee des demokratischen Sozialismus, einer Gesellschaft der Freien und Gleichen, in der unsere Grundwerte verwirklicht sind. Sie verlangt eine Ordnung von Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft, in der die bürgerlichen, politischen, sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Grundrechte für alle Menschen garantiert sind, alle Menschen ein Leben ohne Ausbeutung, Unterdrückung und Gewalt, also in sozialer und menschlicher Sicherheit führen können.
Das Ende des Staatssozialismus sowjetischer Prägung hat die Idee des demokratischen Sozialismus nicht widerlegt, sondern die Orientierung der Sozialdemokratie an Grundwerten eindrucksvoll bestätigt. Der demokratische Sozialismus bleibt für uns die Vision einer freien, gerechten und solidarischen Gesellschaft, deren Verwirklichung für uns einedauernde Aufgabe ist. Das Prinzip unseres Handelns ist die soziale Demokratie.
You may want to look into the ideologies of European political parties that have "socialist" in their names, instead of relying on definitions from the Soviet revolution.
Socialism in Europe is social democracy. The only difference between "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe is how fractionally close to the right or left side of the center line they are.
The definition of socialism does not change and has not changed, and it's not "social democracy".
Many European political parties that have "socialist" in their names are historically socialist but have all but abandonned that ideology in favour of social democracy (i.e they have moved right) because, as we know, socialism was tried and it failed so there has been a lot of soul-searching on the left since the fall of the USSR and al.
That does not mean that there aren't socialists anymore, including in major parties.
For the more central block parties, this is correct. But for many ultra-left and ultra-right parties, this is not necessarily true. There are true Marxist or Stalinist blocks in many of the ultra-left. There are straight-up fascists in the right wing "national socialist" parties.
ultra-right parties may have "socialist" in their name, but they are typically not in a sense connected to Marx&Hegel. Example: the "National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (Hitler's NSDAP) was not marxist.
Yes, and I never said so. But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic.
And neither the marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party) nor the fascists in the far-right parties are social democratic.
(Of course there is no such thing as a "social democracy", in the sense that the government structure is modified from a "non-social" democracy. But there can be democrats who push for a socially oriented governance. For example: Let's have affordable healthcare. Yes, that means that it cost more for rich people..
Democrats here means "people who want to take part in a democracy". not the US party. Not that they are liberal in the European sense either.)
)
> But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic
That's actually largely the case in Western/Middle Europe.
> marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party)
Which are often not seen as socialist. Social/socialist typically signals that the party is inside the system supporting political spectrum. "communist/marxist" usually signals that the party is at least partly outside the system supporting political spectrum.
It’s a mix that includes social democracy and democratic socialism, as well as things to the right of the former (Britain’s Labour is still nominally socialist) and left of the latter.
> Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).
The problem with that sentence is that you can say the same sentence with socialism/communism/capitalism in any order and you would find people who would sign it. And to some degree, maybe all would be right.
I was enjoying The Expanse until the Marco Inaros arc started. From that point onwards the show felt rushed, mostly repeating the formula of so many other shows, and sidestepped all the alien bits that could have been interesting.
I much preferred BSG, even though it had plenty of boring "west wing in space" episodes.
I thought the political episodes were some of the most interesting ones. I love how Apollo grew up to challenge the attempted coup and ultimately became President as the series wound down. Also loved Richard Hatch's Tom Zarek character and the religious cult formed around Gaius Baltar.
All in all, I really enjoy all the moral greys in the series.
Europe is just as varied as the U.S. in terms of attitudes towards religion. I don't think you can generalize either the entire continent or all the states.
Users doing speed tests in CGNAT may be seeing numbers that aren't exactly real for a (still) mostly IPv4 Internet.
reply