Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IAB Statement on IPv6

iab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#51

Post by ncw33 »

_red wrote: post #47
proactivesvcs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

>consumes router resources Thats a weird claim to make against IPv4. Grab a calculator and see how much memory is required by a IPv6 /64 address space.

Not much! Just a few bytes for each packet. Running a NAT service requires a big table of all the active connections, ie. it's stateful - IPv6 with no NAT needs no per-connection state in the router so that's a big space-saving.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#52

Post by mitchty »

_red wrote: post #47
proactivesvcs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

>consumes router resources Thats a weird claim to make against IPv4. Grab a calculator and see how much memory is required by a IPv6 /64 address space.

The claim isn't about memory needed to flesh out an entire address range, but resources allocated to things like nat in ipv4.

Why am I trying to fill out in memory an entire /64? More importantly what purpose will doing that for a home network that will at best have 100 nodes even with ipv6? The memory needed to route and track 100 ipv6 nodes vs 100 ipv4 is a rounding error. Even if I enabled privacy extensions the amount of addresses is miniscule.

Nat sucks, end of story, and yes ipv6 requires more memory. It is a bigger address range after all. We also gain a lot of what we lost with ipv4 years ago.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#53

Post by kalleboo »

jontro wrote: post #39
AndrewDucker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon seem to be slowly getting there: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2016/10/ipv6-supp...

ELBs support ipv6 as well

Only EC2-Classic ELBs do, which is only available to users who signed up for AWS before Dec 2013 (and doesn't support all the new VPC goodness)

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#54

Post by selectodude »

executesorder66 wrote: post #30
vishbar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really interesting how it spikes on weekends! I wonder if this is because more home broadband connections are ipv6-enabled compared to businesses?

I guess it's hobbyists who's normal internet connection is ipv4, but on the weekend they have time to dick around with ipv6 devices and connections.

Comcast and Verizon Wireless rolled out IPv6 years ago, and resolves IPv6 addresses first by default. Nobody is dicking around, it's just transparent.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#56

Post by Spooky23 »

proactivesvcs wrote: post #46
Spooky23 wrote: post #38

I've not run into a problem solved by IPv6. There's no incentive for ISPs to provide good service, so they can just follow the mobile carrier route and nat/proxy when exhaustion becomes an issue. As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.

I run into NAT almost every single day. It wastes time, breaks things, consumes router resources, rules out certain technologies/products/services and duplicates so much work it's just unreal.

IPv6 != No NATing.

Example: Verizon Wireless.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#57

Post by lloeki »

Arnt wrote: post #5

I noticed the other day that IPv6 growth is slowing down, as Google measures it. Its access share used to double every ten or eleven months, now it doubles more slowly, and seems likely to reach 20% only in 2017 instead of this year, and if it goes on as in the recent months, 30% in 2018 instead of in 2017. At a guess, many of most competent ISPs have done their thing and now we're seeing the more sluggish middle. Or…

Here in France, there have been leading ISPs (Free ADSL), good citizens (SFR), and laggards that keep on dragging their feet (Orange, Numericable). Things got worse when Numericable bought SFR, halting progress with stupid rules in place that when you get the budget version of a contract you don't get IPv6 because reasons.

Let's not get started on "pro" versions where you just don't get IPv6 at all, ever, and on the phone you can even get them mumbling that it's not even on the table (Completel).

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#58

Post by lloeki »

executesorder66 wrote: post #7
ryao wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and github are the two major offenders.

https://ipv6wallofshame.com/ Baidu, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit are also major players who could make a huge difference.

apple.com isn't but redirects to www.apple.com which is IPv6 enabled (akamai)

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#59

Post by kalleboo »

phicoh wrote: post #36
kalleboo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Japan, the largest consumer fiber wholesale network (NTT) "supports" IPv6, but you need a separate, $100 router that talks PPPoEv6 since none of the common consumer routers (including the one they provision you with) seem to support it. I also haven't been able to get PPPoEv6 working in macOS.

Anything that can run OpenWRT should be able to do PPPoE with IPv6.

Just explaining why there's poor IPv6 adoption. Anyone can get IPv6 though a tunnel if they really want it...

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#60

Post by _red »

ncw33 wrote: post #51
_red wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>consumes router resources Thats a weird claim to make against IPv4. Grab a calculator and see how much memory is required by a IPv6 /64 address space.

Not much! Just a few bytes for each packet. Running a NAT service requires a big table of all the active connections, ie. it's stateful - IPv6 with no NAT needs no per-connection state in the router so that's a big space-saving.

So you don't want stateful inspection on your private LAN router? Its ok for every hacker to portscan the 100's of IoT devices in your house? You're a very trusting fellow.
Post reply on HN