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

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#121

Post by Keverw »

wtallis wrote: post #117
Keverw wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used http://test-ipv6.com/ to run the test. Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) appears to be SCRR-10796 - Time Warner Cable Internet LLC, US I'm in Ohio.

Time Warner Cable provides IPv6: https://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/faqs/faqs-interne... Your issue is site-specific; most likely your modem is outdated, but your router may also be configured to not try to acquire a block of IPv6 addresses.

Interesting. No communication from them. I figured this is the sorta thing they'd mass contact people about to update.

I remember asking the installer about 3 years ago about it. He said I'd have it as soon as they turn it on at the central office...

I'm not really too worried about it yet as it's not a problem really yet. I hate talking to support people.

I went to the IPv6 page and it's not showing a V6 IP Address http://screencast.com/t/Xuq4VOfnS but the Dynamic page for IPv4 displays it in those text boxes(editing is disabled on them even though they look like inputs. A bit confusing UX if just looking at the image)

So it appears my firmware has it... strange. This is on the modem itself, not the router as it's a all in one.

Just found this: http://forums.timewarnercable.com/t5/IPv6/Not-getting-IPv6-A... from two months ago "I got someone from Tier 3 on the phone and he told me it was not available yet in my area." so hmm, sounds like some areas might be last to get it then.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#122

Post by toast0 »

tptacek wrote: post #97
mikecb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't ipv6 include efficiencies for this, like hierarchical prefixes?

In practical reality, doesn't that just mitigate the strain caused by an explosion in the size of the address tables?

A sometimes large but solvable part of the problem in ipv4 routing table sizes is numerically adjacent routes that could be aggregated into fewer announcements but aren't; ipv6 doesn't help with that. Another part of the problem is that many networks have lots of allocations that aren't adjacent, so they can't aggregate them; ipv6 should help with that as there's room for big allocations.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#123

Post by CountSessine »

avar wrote: post #19
executesorder66 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I work for one of the companies on that wall of shame. I wonder to what extent it has the reverse of the intended effect. "Oh so not even Amazon, Twitter or GitHub gives a crap about IPv6? Why should we?".

Oh so not even Amazon, Twitter or GitHub gives a crap about IPv6? Why should we?

If this is really what they're thinking, then they have no pride in their work and will never be the best at what they do. I suspect most of the engineers working for Amazon, Twitter, and GitHub are well aware that they're lagging in ipv6, and are very intent on catching up.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#124

Post by CountSessine »

ryao wrote: post #41
ttflee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With poor adoption rate of IPv6 persists in China, half of those listed (taobao, tmall, baidu, hao123, qq, youku, sina, weibo, etc.) just won't change in near future.

I am visiting China. It seems impossible to get an IPv6 address from either China Telecom (the ASN lacks IPv6 peering) or a datacentdr within China. Sending traffic to a VM in South Korea has similarly had the issue where I cannot find any VMs with IPv6 support, although most have terrible latencies.

I don't understand; APNIC ran out of ipv4 addresses ages ago. How do they...internet?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#125

Post by CountSessine »

eb0la wrote: post #113
danudey wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heard a "funny" story about Facebook switching over to pure IPv6 and their issues dealing with largely untested IPv6 implementations. For example, switches which, when presented with an IPv6 BGP route while they don't have IPv6 configured, crash. Apparently they took down an entire data centre full of rack switches finding that out. My second-favorite problem, after that was solved, was developers constantly using IP…

Very "funny", but that kind of crashes happened more than you imagine.. in telcos. Usually the problem is memory. A machine with full routing enabled needs much more memory for IPv6 than for IPv4 and when routers run out of memory they just crash, reboot, and start again...

Usually the problem is memory. A machine with full routing enabled needs much more memory for IPv6 than for IPv4

Interesting - why? I would have thought that routing tables for ipv6 would be a fraction of the size of their ipv4 equivalents. Am I wrong? Or is this just sloppy programming on the part of those switch programmers?

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#126

Post by CountSessine »

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.

True, but that's just kind of dumb.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#127

Post by CountSessine »

pdkl95 wrote: post #65
fps wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

This needs to be repeated everywhere. There are too many system admins with dangerously bad ideas about IPv6 and NAT. NAT needs to die in a fire and if you're rolling out NAT for IPv6 you're wasting your time and your company's money for a bag of nothing.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#128

Post by witty_username »

CountSessine wrote: post #124
ryao wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am visiting China. It seems impossible to get an IPv6 address from either China Telecom (the ASN lacks IPv6 peering) or a datacentdr within China. Sending traffic to a VM in South Korea has similarly had the issue where I cannot find any VMs with IPv6 support, although most have terrible latencies.

I don't understand; APNIC ran out of ipv4 addresses ages ago. How do they...internet?

I think IPv4 addresses can be bought for cheaper than the cost to transition to IPv6.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#129

Post by dastbe »

fulafel wrote: post #82
icedchai wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense. AWS can give you IPv4 elastic IPs, which provide end-to-end addressing on IPv4. IPv6 will be no different in this regard. "End-to-end addressing" is typically an end user issue, where end users use NAT. In the early days of the internet, nobody used NAT.

AWS encourages you to use VPCs for service-internal addressing. Yes, you can rent "elastic IPs", but in the AWS mindset they are special and to be used only for NATing Internet endpoints to your services. It's based on end-to-end addressing being special and a scarce resource. This is compatible with the traditional corporate intranet style of thinking, but it's also in the opposite of internet end-to-end addressing…

ipv6 has a provision for locally routable addresses, because yes publicly routable addresses should be special. They should just also be free.

Re: IAB Statement on IPv6

#130

Post by fulafel »

dastbe wrote: post #129
fulafel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS encourages you to use VPCs for service-internal addressing. Yes, you can rent "elastic IPs", but in the AWS mindset they are special and to be used only for NATing Internet endpoints to your services. It's based on end-to-end addressing being special and a scarce resource. This is compatible with the traditional corporate intranet style of thinking, but it's also in the opposite of internet end-to-end addressing…

ipv6 has a provision for locally routable addresses, because yes publicly routable addresses should be special. They should just also be free.

Link-local addresses are not routable and are not meant for application use, they're just for low level things like neighbour discovery and router advertisements (analogous to IPv4 ARP/DHCP).

There's also ULA that can be used for non-internet connected networks and some other special scenarios, but it would be a bad idea (and against recommended practice) to use them to port your RFC1918 addressing to IPv6.

Post reply on HN