How bad is IPv4 address exhaustion? • Hacker News Board

Re: How bad is IPv4 address exhaustion?

#91

Post by disfadbish » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

YouKnowBetter wrote: post #85

AstralStorm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. Firewall rules is one sed call. IDS are dinosaurs and junk that are generally worthless (feel free to show me otherwise). Since all major OS support ipv6 there's nothing to educate about other than perhaps new IP address form. Software upgrades? Like what software, OS to support NAT64? Which every major OS supports? (Including Windows 7. The holdouts are ancient telephones and tiny embedded trash.) Toolchain…

> Firewall rules is one sed call Not so fast. With over 60.000 clients (yes with all known OSes and versions known to man), 10.000 servers (yes with all known OSes and versions known to man), 50 network firewalls, firewall on nearly all hosts (clients & servers), it might be just a little more then a sed call. > IDS are dinosaurs and junk that are generally worthless. They're part of the infrastructure, partly "just…

This guy definitely knows better

Re: How bad is IPv4 address exhaustion?

#92

Post by nik736 » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

chrisper wrote: post #39

nik736 wrote: post #2

I am actually not really sure if those people really believe that IPv6 will EVER replace IPv4, which in my opinion will never happen.

http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html Looks like it's growing rather steadily.

I am certain that those are legit users /s

(and not crawlers of all those SEO tools that need to crawl with different IPs because they hit rate limits very fast)

Re: How bad is IPv4 address exhaustion?

#93

Post by seeekr » Mon, Feb 19, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

adrianmonk wrote: post #83

gruez wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>: Mass adoption of IPv6 is blocked by the ugliness/inconvenience of the IPv6 address format, hence "end-users" (developers) don't like adopting IPv6. As long as this UX issue does not get solved, IPv6 adoption is only going to happen on an individual level when any given business' significant income stream is at immediate risk of being disrupted. it's a 128 bit number. no matter how you encode it, the ux is going to…

I don't think the UX necessarily has to suck. Three observations: 1. Just because we have 128 bits doesn't mean we have to use them all right now. 2. As anyone who's familiar with data compression knows, there are ways to represent some values in convenient forms and other values in less convenient forms. 3. There is a trade-off between ease of allocation and ease of use. Maybe we shift the focus toward ease of use i…

Your comment spawned the following (minor?) idea for me: A lot of the devices (and hence IP addresses) we basically know are never going to be accessed directly by a human being, only through some combination of tools and automated processes, if at all. Make a distinction, where possible and appropriate, between these and the actually-UX-relevant addresses and reserve the shorter/nicer ones for human use. (This may not be a great idea, or may be impractical, but I still wanted to put it here, because there's benefit in mapping out any amount of the potential solution space.)

Also, thinking about it in this way, "end user" for IPv6 does not only translate to the developers working with IPv6 as consumers (think someone getting an IP from AWS for deploying their app), but, for maximum effectiveness, should also include the developers working on the implementation as well as distribution end of the technology. As always, these two (or more) groups have different levels of motivation to adopt and use the technology, and as such it is likely that the usual tradeoffs can be made (making something a bit harder to implement, for the sake of much increased "consumer" experience).

Ideally there would be a spec and an implementation that would appeal to both allocators as well as consumers of the address space.

Re: How bad is IPv4 address exhaustion?

#94

Post by devdas » Thu, Mar 01, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

d3ckard wrote: post #35

I agree with people blaming whole situation on ugly format of IPv6. I also believe that increase to 128bit address was unnecessary and harmful. We could have just added another two segments, have 48 bits total and it would probably be enough. It would also be much easier for people to switch from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.127.0.0.1 than to ::1.

The problem with changing anything from 32 bit would have run into the same issues. You have a whole new stack.