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

61–70 of 131 posts

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#61

Post by proactivesvcs »

_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.

I don't need to grab a calculator to figure out what I have already witnessed.

I've come across several routers that stop working (partially or completely) or spontaneously reboot when there are too many active NAT sessions. At a few customers I've had to set session limits to prevent some devices from being unable to talk to the WAN.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#62

Post by proactivesvcs »

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.

As I understand it, there have been a few nation-scale Internet outages that have been a result of IPv4 address tables reaching their resource ceiling (not relating to NAT) - another example of how IPv4 is no longer fit for purpose regarding hardware resources.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#63

Post by proactivesvcs »

fps wrote: post #50
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.

As a sysadmin, if I had limitless IPv4 addresses, I'd still use NAT on servers and clients because it's a useful security layer. There's little reason that individual devices need globally routable IP addresses.

But with an extra layer to configure and for a vendor to properly implement, surely that also means it's an extra security liability?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#64

Post by proactivesvcs »

Spooky23 wrote: post #56
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.

IPv6 != No NATing. Example: Verizon Wireless.

Quite. But there's no need, nor excuse for NAT on IPv6.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#65

Post by pdkl95 »

fps wrote: post #50
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.

As a sysadmin, if I had limitless IPv4 addresses, I'd still use NAT on servers and clients because it's a useful security layer. There's little reason that individual devices need globally routable IP addresses.

> it's a useful security layer

No, it's not. As a sysadmin, you should know the difference between NAT and a stateful firewall, and that NAT alone doesn't prevent packets from being routed to local addresses.

> There's little reason that individual devices need globally routable IP addresses.

NAT has been more damaging to the development of network software than any other factor. NAT breaks the development of true network software, such that entire categories of software haven't even been considered.

NAT forces extremely complicated hacks[1] and centralized management of true peer to peer connections. The benefit of the internet has been that any peer has the capability to publish. NAT breaks that benefit, turning the internet back into cable TV, where most people need an imprimatur[2] to publish.

[1] http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/

[2] https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#66

Post by [deleted] »

_red wrote: post #60
ncw33 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#67

Post by executesorder66 »

selectodude wrote: post #54
executesorder66 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does that explain the massive spikes on weekends?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#68

Post by woah »

eb0la wrote: post #17
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…

If I remember well at least 2-3 years ago it was complicated to measure IPv6 usage on a high-end router, and that was tied to billing. Every vendor (Cisco/Juniper/Alcatel/Huawei) had a different way to do it and since B2B billing depended on it IPv6 adoption was not as easy as expected.

What was complicated about it?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#69

Post by phicoh »

kalleboo wrote: post #59
phicoh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I focussed on your suggestion that it had to cost $100.

If people don't need IPv6, then why bother. My impression is that the content providers don't care about IPv6, so I assume they have plenty of IPv4 space.

Some large consumer ISP are short on IPv4 address, but in that case, they will will make sure their customers get IPv6 capable CPEs.

Anything else is a very nice hobby.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#70

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN