That’s why you ban IPv6 subnets rather than individual addresses. IPv6 has a standardised subnet size, so banning that whole range would be equivalent to banning an individual IPv4 address that uses NAT.
4 Likes
Painful in data centers that assign each server 1 IP in a shared /64 (at least by default), though.
That is horrifying…
Though imo, I think vendors deviating from the /64 standard will have to find their own way around getting their subnets blacklisted.
I know DigitalOcean assigns very small IPv6 subnets, and they block email over IPv6 for this reason.
1 Like
It’s easy to understand why that would be the default, but if they charge for a /64 of your own I’d find another host.
From the start that has been widely considered a terrible idea, but this did not stop some providers from doing it.
However, every DNSBL I know of that supports IPv6 listings does list on /64 or larger, and lots of other IP reputation services go by at least the /64 as well, so again it is already pretty well established that if you share a /64 you share IP reputation.
Of the providers that don’t by default give at least a /64, the only one I have personally experienced is Linode. You basically cannot reliably send IPv6 email from Linode without asking for your own /64, because some other customer will have polluted the shared /64. Linode do assign you a /64 of your own for free if you ask though.
1 Like
This seems to no longer be the case. I just checked on Ubuntu 25.04 and it now uses {1,2,3,4}.ntp.ubuntu.com, all of which return 1 A and 1 AAAA record.
Seems that Canonical has seen the light and realized that (at least for Ubuntu+Chrony) there is no significant disadvantage with enabling IPv6 (and for that matter, NTS too) across the board.
I myself have used ntppool1.time.nl & ntppool2.time.nl for a while now, which also supports IPv6. I’ve not noticed any issues, even with roaming between iPv4-only and IPv4+IPv6 networks on my laptop.
3 Likes
Oh that’s cool; IPv6 and NTS - sweet.
Thanks.
I found the (or an) official announcement about it here:
1 Like
That’s great. I couldn’t stop myself in making a quick inventory of some other Linux distro’s:
- Debian: systemd-timesyncd with {0,1,2,3}.debian.pool.ntp.org (so technically some IPv6, but no NTS)
- Fedora: Chrony with 2.fedora.pool.ntp.org (so IPv6, no NTS)
- Arch Linux: Chrony with {2,0,1,3}.arch.pool.ntp.org (so IPv6, no NTS)
And I was too lazy to find look at more distro’s. Looks like NTS is definitely not common yet, though IPv6 will work on most, if not all distro’s.
1 Like
I also could not help myself and had another look at the screenshot @alica made, back in 2017 and compared it with the current situation.
I put them both here for comparison. 
Then:
Now:
3 Likes
Cloudflare also have nice data on the topic.
The way I understand it, a main difference between Google’s and Cloudflare’s respective data sets is that the former assesses adoption in the sense of availability of IPv6, while the latter assesses actual usage, i.e., respective percentage of (HTTP/HTTPS) data volume transferred.
As previously mentioned in this thread already, IPv6 traffic in India surpassed IPv4 traffic some time ago already, while several other countries are now approaching the 50% mark, or have surpassed it as well when not counting “bot traffic”.
1 Like
IPv6 still sucks. Every time you replace hardware it’s a mess.
I killed it again, as again (new router) it’s again a struggle to get it working where IPv4 was up and running in seconds.
After 27 years, people still hate it.
You might wonder why it’s still pushed and not adoped. Maybe time to review it and modify it.
For me IPv6 is terrible and I hate it. I tried to embrase it for 10 years now…it sucks. 
It would be on topic to discuss why IPv6 has not been enabled in the pool DNS… - {0,1,3}
2 Likes
That is the Google’s statistics, at IPv6 – Google :
The peak at 49.56%, soon it will pass the 50% mark, that means more IPv6 than IPv4 traffic towards Google.
3 Likes
Here we go again… 
No need to wonder - it is adopted.
Greetings from my IPv6-enabled laptop on an IPv6 Mostly network, posting to this equally IPv6-enabled Discourse forum server. 
2 Likes
Perhaps @Bas lives somewhere in the Saharan Africa and is a humble camel herder. 
1 Like
The coverage of IPv6 monitoring is A LOT more sparse than IPv4 monitors. With the new monitoring system it’s much easier to run dual-stack monitors (just one daemon and setup process).
Link to instructions in the monitor operator section.
4 Likes
A post was split to a new topic: Routers / firewalls with poor IPv6 support
I’ll close this topic; not for lack of good discussion but it’s really unwieldy to have one topic be everything IPv6.
While my intention obviously only counts for so much; I expect to get back to this as one of the next projects after the monitoring changes have settled.
We might have a big infrastructure move in the next 3-6 months that’ll take over all the attention I’m able to give the project, but I’m obviously aware that this is an important feature.
The notes above about giving vendors some features around managing this still holds up: Intention to enable IPv6 by default in 2017 - #72 by ask
2 Likes