Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvdginste | Hacker News Reader

Would it be realistic today to make a commercial website only available on an IPv6 address? Or would the website lose too much traffic because of that?

View on HN

Google publishes a map of what percentage of users are accessing them via IPV6.[1]. The numbers aren't great. The US is around 53%, UK 43%, Brazil 45%, France 74%, India 68%. And many countries much lower. I believe the setup is such that if the end user's IPV6 was functional, they get counted.

[1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Thank you for the statistics, they are interesting. Would also be interesting to know the evolution of those statistics over the last 5 years.

Either way, seems that an IPv4 address is still needed for websites that target a worldwide audience.

There is an "adoption" tab that shows history for the overall percentage, and it has grown significantly.

I think, though, that most of the growth is mobile devices, which seem to more broadly support ipv6 because they have to. If they would show growth for Home/ISP, I suspect it would be pretty lousy.

Right. Why did I not see that? Thanks!

You could do that but also get an ipv4-enabled cdn. If your website is big enough it would require a cdn anyway, and the cdn provider most likely supports ipv6 origins

Not in the UK. Most cheap residential BB is v4 only.

If you use Cloudflare's tunnel (or similar), you don't even need a publicly routable address.

Why would it lose traffic? Even Windows Vista knew how to talk to IPv6.

Can't talk it to the server if the ISP between you and the server refuses to talk it.

Because, unfortunately, not everyone has working IPv6 transit. There are still a nontrivial number of ISPs (especially smaller ones) which don't provide IPv6, and residential network hardware like wireless routers which don't support it.

I guess this is currently then the biggest issue with IPv6 adoption: ISPs are not yet ready for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com