Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp0ck | Hacker News Reader

My experience with IPv6. I have option to enable full dual stack with my ISP. After doing this I noticed that YT/FB/Google were significantly faster, however my kids started to complaing that some games began to have connectivity issues. Minecraft have problems to start. On a number of sites load time was noticebly longer. Switching off IPv6 as a experiment on one of kids PC solved all issues. My conslusion is that it is not worth to enable IPv6 and spend time to diagnose constant issues with random pages and services.

View on HN

If we’re talking anecdotally, I am running dual stack IPv6 and have had zero issues with Minecraft or any other game on my network on Xbox, Switch, iOS and PC.

Same, my Xbox series x is noticeably faster with matchmaking games. Lobby time and searching for new games dropped from 3 minutes on average to about 45 seconds.

Minecraft does not support v6 but I wonder what caused the issues. Maybe the presence of v6 support caused DNS to give a v6 address and this caused problems? Seems unusual.

Minecraft absolutely supports IPv6. The server doesn't bind to v6 by default but will happily do so and work if you tell it to.

Agreed- I turned on ipV6 and even tried turning off ipv4. All I found was a bunch of new, different problems to debug that were inevitably because somebody else somewhere doesn't support ipv6, or I would have to run some sort of bridge between the two networks. Of course this is for home where I don't need a gajillion publicly-routed IPs.

This is a frustrating take which I find myself challenging again and again and again. The need for IPv6 is not just about how many IP addresses _you_ need. The need for IPv6 is a global issue for a variety of reasons, including finding addressing for all of the millions of people and billions of devices still to come online, reducing complexity for system and application developers and being able to finally shed decades of protocol design decisions that have ended up being more painful than helpful.

Everyone is always so quick to jump to how _they_ don't need IPv6. The truth is that we _all_ need it. Eventually, there will become a day when services will start to migrate to IPv6 because the cost and limitations of IPv4 addressing will become prohibitive. Then you'll no doubt care when it affects you personally.

First thing I do setting up any network is disable ipv6. It's caused issues at least once, and that's one time too many for something that doesn't benefit me in any other way.

For me, the first thing is actually enabling ipv6

Yeah, either direction is changing a big part of your network stack, so it has a high likelihood of resolving random issues.

On my linux machine, dns queries would sometimes last 5 seconds with ipv6 enabled. It made my internet surfing experience extremely frustrating. Disabling ipv6 resolved this issue.

Don't really understand networks yet, but I guess it was because my isp doesn't support ipv6, but linux kept defaulting to ipv6 before trying ipv4.

Most likely your DNS (which may be the ISP default) is bad at handling ipv6 queries, solvable by switching to Cloudflare DNS or something. If you care. Probably neither of us would bother.

I have never fixed network problems by turning IPv6 on, but I have fixed them numerous times by turning it off.

A similar anecdote is I couldn't download podcasts from iHeartRadio. Either through pocket casts or thier website. Also twitter went very slow.

I think it was an ISP issue. At the time IP6 was in beta. Now it's enabled for everyone and the issues stopped happening.

I don't think this anecdote proves anything.

It doesn't say a lot. What says more is how often you seek home networking advice and one of the first troubleshooting steps is to disable ipv6 (though restarting the router is probably first).

Could be an MTU issue? iPv4 supports packet splitting but not ipv6

Reply on news.ycombinator.com