# The time has come: we must enable IPv6 entirely **URL:** \ **Category:** Pool Development\ **Created:** [April 13, 2021, 7:56pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968 "2021-04-13T19:56:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![marco.davids](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/marco.davids/32/767_2.png) [@marco.davids](https://community.ntppool.org/u/marco.davids)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2024, 7:18am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/165 "2024-09-23T07:18:22Z")
> [@Bas](#): > > but they have 16 mil addresses. They buy them; > **[Microsoft buys old net addresses](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12859585)** > > Microsoft has offered to pay $7.5m (£4.7m) for net addresses from bankrupt telecoms firm Nortel. Just as [Amazon](https://toonk.io/aws-and-their-billions-in-ipv4-addresses/index.html) (and other big ones) do. > [@](#): > > And if you order a VPS, you get a IPv4 static for free with it. Have you ever compared the [prices of these VPS](https://www.cinfu.com/vps) to [IPv6-only VPS](https://www.cinfu.com/ipv6-vps) and wondered why IPv6-only ones are so much cheaper? > [@](#): > > If they stop this abuse of IPv4, there are plenty addresses. By definition there are only ~4 billion IPv4 addresses available. No matter how fair you distribute them; that is simply not sufficient for todays -let alone future- demand. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/system/32/1_2.png) [@system](https://community.ntppool.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2024, 10:19am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/166 "2024-09-23T10:19:26Z")
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/system/32/1_2.png) [@system](https://community.ntppool.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2024, 3:21pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/167 "2024-10-15T15:21:46Z")
This topic was automatically opened after 22 days. ---
**Author:** ![sebi](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/sebi/32/1040_2.png) [@sebi](https://community.ntppool.org/u/sebi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2024, 3:09pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/168 "2024-11-30T15:09:35Z")
The client can always select to use “server -4 \*.pool.ntp.org” to get IPv4 only, or “server -6 \*.pool.ntp.org” to get IPv6 only. There is no need to break the geographical structure by adding a special IPv6 subdomain. ---
**Author:** ![Kets\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/46a35a/32.png) [@Kets\_One](https://community.ntppool.org/u/Kets_One)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 5:05pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/169 "2024-12-05T17:05:50Z")
True, but still i’m looking forward to have ipv6 enabled across the board, instead of relying on client config (which might not always be possible on some very simple IoT clients). I suspect i might have to reduce the server bandwidth setting when a flood of ipv4 clients will be routed to my ipv6 servers 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DandelionSprout](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/dandelionsprout/32/409_2.png) [@DandelionSprout](https://community.ntppool.org/u/DandelionSprout)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2025, 7:20am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/170 "2025-08-10T07:20:47Z")
On client-side I use a self-hosted instance of AdGuard Home (Works similarly to Pi-hole but is better in every way) to redirect IPv6 DNS lookup requests to NTP’s 2.(…) IPv6 addresses. For the main pool•ntp•org domain, I use: ```auto |pool.ntp.org|$dnstype=AAAA,dnsrewrite=2.pool.ntp.org |0.pool.ntp.org|$dnstype=AAAA,dnsrewrite=2.pool.ntp.org |1.pool.ntp.org|$dnstype=AAAA,dnsrewrite=2.pool.ntp.org |3.pool.ntp.org|$dnstype=AAAA,dnsrewrite=2.pool.ntp.org ``` This workaround is something that most client users out there would be unlikely to set up successfully, however. ---
**Author:** ![marco.davids](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/marco.davids/32/767_2.png) [@marco.davids](https://community.ntppool.org/u/marco.davids)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2025, 11:21am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/171 "2025-09-09T11:21:23Z")
Interesting observation: Ubuntu is planning to replace `systemd-timesyncd` with Chrony starting with release 25.10. It will come pre-configured with their own NTS-enabled servers, which also happen to support IPv6. In the default configuration, the traditional NTP Pool servers are still present, but commented out, so they remain available for those who prefer them: > **[ubuntu/+source/chrony - \[no description\]](https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chrony/commit/?id=32465fc6d906523c05e445d4966d42782cc2618b)** ---
**Author:** ![avij](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/avij/32/197_2.png) [@avij](https://community.ntppool.org/u/avij)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 7:09pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/172 "2025-12-14T19:09:44Z")
> [@avij](#): > > In my opinion, even potentially breaking changes can be done if a proper notice about upcoming changes is published in advance. If I was in charge, I would publish an announcement no later than in October with the following information: > > - [2.pool.ntp.org](http://2.pool.ntp.org) has had an AAAA record since 8.6.2011 > - [1.pool.ntp.org](http://1.pool.ntp.org) and [3.pool.ntp.org](http://3.pool.ntp.org) will get an AAAA record on 6.6.2022 > - [pool.ntp.org](http://pool.ntp.org) and [0.pool.ntp.org](http://0.pool.ntp.org) will get an AAAA record on 6.6.2023 > > This would give people sufficient time to adjust their configuration if needed. This is what I wrote some four years ago. I’d still suggest an approach similar to the above. I would think that any possible concerns regarding IPv6 addresses have faded away by now. For example devices that only supported IPv4 are most probably out of support by now, replaced by newer devices that support IPv6. [Google’s global statistics](https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) tell me that IPv6 adoption has increased from around 35% to 46% in these four years. My biggest concern with IPv4 is CGNAT. There are regional differences in how CGNAT gets implemented, but a typical scenario might be that a single IPv4 address is shared between multiple customers, but each customer gets their own IPv6 address (or a network). Even my parents have this kind of configuration at home with their home fibre. Please also note that CGNAT usage may differ between regions. CGNAT causes problems for NTP server operators trying to configure rate limiting for their servers. Some IPv4 address might be in use by one person and another IPv4 address by 100 persons. Good luck coming up with a configuration that is suitable for both. With IPv6 each user would get their own IPv6 address which could be rate-limited independently. It’s not a matter of “if” but “when”. The NTP pool must get full IPv6 support at some point and I’d prefer to have it soon. ---
**Author:** ![marco.davids](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/marco.davids/32/767_2.png) [@marco.davids](https://community.ntppool.org/u/marco.davids)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2025, 8:13am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/173 "2025-12-15T08:13:32Z")
> [@avij](#): > > It’s not a matter of “if” but “when”. The NTP pool must get full IPv6 support at some point and I’d prefer to have it soon. Of course I agree. It’s pretty ironic when you think about it. Many of us have been trying to explain why adding more AAAA records to the pool is most likely **not** going to cause issues, yet I see very little evidence of the opposite. People are configuring `time.nist.gov`, `time.google.com`, `time.cloudflare.com`, `time.apple.com`, `time.facebook.com`, `ntp.ubuntu.com`, `time.aws.com`, `ntp.se`, `ntp.ripe.net`, `ntp.time.nl`, `2.pool.ntp.org`, and many others - all IPv6-enabled - without any problems whatsoever. I have added a number of IPv6-only servers to the pool (because IPv6-only VMs are really cheap), and it is disappointing that they are not leveraged to their full potential **solely** because AAAA records are missing from the DNS. ---
**Author:** ![mo01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3be4f8/32.png) [@mo01](https://community.ntppool.org/u/mo01)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2025, 8:28am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/174 "2025-12-15T08:28:55Z")
Is it known who is responsible for that and why those people are refusing to add them? ---
**Author:** ![marco.davids](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/marco.davids/32/767_2.png) [@marco.davids](https://community.ntppool.org/u/marco.davids)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 8:03am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/175 "2026-04-20T08:03:08Z")
Just wanted to share that [Google hit the 50% IPv6 mark](https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) a couple of days ago. ![Scherm­afbeelding 2026-04-20 om 10.00.15](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/ntppool/original/2X/2/24cb1d071cbc9c1d0f2cb72be5bfaee62ebc0e5d.png) ---
**Author:** ![ronv42](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/ronv42/32/1466_2.png) [@ronv42](https://community.ntppool.org/u/ronv42)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 10:56am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/176 "2026-04-20T10:56:54Z")
30 years to get to 50%…this is cause for celebration. Developed: 1995 Draft Standard: 1998 Ratified: 2017 ---
**Author:** ![ebahapo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/ebahapo/32/1152_2.png) [@ebahapo](https://community.ntppool.org/u/ebahapo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 12:57pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/177 "2026-04-20T12:57:46Z")
IPv4 Development Timeline: - 1974: development - 1979-81: standardization - 1983: ratification It wasn’t until the early 2000s that IPv4 became the dominant protocol in corporate networks. What’s that, some 30 odd years? ---
**Author:** ![marco.davids](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/marco.davids/32/767_2.png) [@marco.davids](https://community.ntppool.org/u/marco.davids)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 1:47pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/178 "2026-04-20T13:47:11Z")
> [@ronv42](#): > > 30 years to get to 50% The good news is: this is only a global average. Some countries perform significantly better, like France for example. ![Scherm­afbeelding 2026-04-20 om 16.09.22](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/ntppool/original/2X/7/77c715f8a1a23e71d4cfc099c3b33aa6f793744c.png) ---
**Author:** ![ronv42](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/ronv42/32/1466_2.png) [@ronv42](https://community.ntppool.org/u/ronv42)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 2:44pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/179 "2026-04-20T14:44:52Z")
Oh those ARPANET days along with Universities where the public was kept off the Internet. So many vendor protocols. I have lived through them all thankfully we standardized on TCP/IP DECnet - Digital Equipment Corp IPX/SPX - Novell SNA/DLC - IBM XNS - Xerox AFP - Apple File Protocol PCNET/NetBEUI - Microsoft and others ---
**Author:** ![Bas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/bas/32/465_2.png) [@Bas](https://community.ntppool.org/u/Bas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 3:21pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/180 "2026-04-20T15:21:41Z")
Not so according to APnic, that I trust more then Google. > **[IPv6 Measurement Maps](https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/?s=IPv6+Preferred&d=Auto&w=30&t=Auto)** ![afbeelding](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/ntppool/original/2X/f/f08e4c8e429f4912e9890e87dac0041dea61c834.jpeg) If you look at the numbers below the picture, it’s not that great. Just a few countries do well and up the numbers, but the rest is very low. In short, IPv6 still fails to make momentum. Time to ditch it and back to the drawing table 🤣 > In December 1998, IPv6 became a Draft Standard for the IETF, 28 years old…still not accepted 👍 ---
**Author:** ![marco.davids](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/marco.davids/32/767_2.png) [@marco.davids](https://community.ntppool.org/u/marco.davids)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 3:42pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/181 "2026-04-20T15:42:28Z")
> [@Bas](#): > > Not so according to APnic, that I trust more then Google. 🤔 ![Scherm­afbeelding 2026-04-20 om 17.41.32](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/ntppool/original/2X/d/d3f313d21069907c7b302235df0cfe23bea46532.png) ---
**Author:** ![Bas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/bas/32/465_2.png) [@Bas](https://community.ntppool.org/u/Bas)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 4:30pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/182 "2026-04-20T16:30:34Z")
Preferred doesn’t mean it’s used. Lots of devices have IPv6 enabled but use IPv4 for almost everything. Typical most servers can’t be reached via IPv6 as they are IPv4. I only enable IPv6 in rackservers, every other location it’s disabled as it’s making things complicated and is a mess nobody understands. Beware, normal people have no clue what they are using and dual-stack is mostly enabled. So you can’t say it’s adopted. As for France, you have mostly no free modem/router choice unlike the rest of Europe, so they force dual-stack on you. If you look at NL it’s real bad compared to e.g. Belgium. Nice you keep showing France, but NL isn’t making much effort. And you are in??? 🤣 ---
**Author:** ![ebahapo](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/community.ntppool.org/ebahapo/32/1152_2.png) [@ebahapo](https://community.ntppool.org/u/ebahapo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2026, 4:48pm UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/183 "2026-04-20T16:48:46Z")
Remember what system administrators said then about postponing IPv4? That it was too cumbersome, too many digits, required routing and sub networking, etc. Sounds familiar? ---
**Author:** ![mo01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3be4f8/32.png) [@mo01](https://community.ntppool.org/u/mo01)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2026, 3:37am UTC](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968/184 "2026-04-21T03:37:55Z")
> Preferred doesn’t mean it’s used. > Lots of devices have IPv6 enabled but use IPv4 for almost everything. > Typical most servers can’t be reached via IPv6 as they are IPv4. > > I only enable IPv6 in rackservers, every other location it’s disabled as it’s making things complicated and is a mess nobody understands. We are not responsible if you do not understand it. I use it at various places. > Beware, normal people have no clue what they are using and dual-stack is mostly enabled. > So you can’t say it’s adopted. Their ISPs enable it for them and they have no interest in disabling it, as it just works. There is a small minority who tells that it is bad and the rest doesn’t care about that nonsense. > As for France, you have mostly no free modem/router choice unlike the rest of Europe, so they force dual-stack on you. It is still possible to disable it on the client side, but most people don’t have a reason for that, as it just works. > If you look at NL it’s real bad compared to e.g. Belgium. Nice you keep showing France, but NL isn’t making much effort. And you are in??? 🤣 They have ~40% of adoption. That is good compared to other places that have below 1%. [Previous page](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968.md?page=8) [Next page](https://community.ntppool.org/t/the-time-has-come-we-must-enable-ipv6-entirely/1968.md?page=10)