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

Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

labs.ripe.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#131

Post by neojima »

mehrdadn wrote: post #57

I'm surprised security and privacy weren't mentioned. In the current state of affairs (no, I'm not talking about some ideal utopia with IPv6 perfection where fifty quintillion additional RFCs have been finally deployed and battle-tested world-wide; I'm talking about IPv6 as available to the ordinary user /today/ ) I simply do not trust using IPv6 to provide as much security or privacy as IPv4. More than happy to chan…

As others have said, most major operating systems implemented RFC4941 (IPv6 Privacy Extensions) years ago. Unless you're using unmaintained OSes (in which case you shouldn't be complaining about security), what privacy implications are you calling out?

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#132

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

noinsight wrote: post #124
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what are the changes in IPv6 other than change in address size that hinder adoption?

ARP was replaced by neighbor discovery protocol. Broadcast was replaced by multicast.

> ARP was replaced by neighbor discovery protocol.

Would you be happy if we renamed NDP to ARPv6? Or is your suggestion that we continue to use ARP and put a more-than-four-byte-address into a fixed-size four byte field?

> Broadcast was replaced by multicast.

So, in IPv6 you can only send packets to a small subset of recipients, whereas in IPv4 you could address a packet to "every IPv4 device on the planet"?

Or are you suggesting we should misname multicast in IPv6 as "broadcast" just as we did in IPv4 in order to solve which technical problem exactly?

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#133

Post by voidwtf »

4ad wrote: post #76
sliken wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very weird, the Comcast consumer lines support IPv6 quite well. Their default is to give a /60, which seems appropriately overkill. Generally it "just works", and my roku, android phones, and similar average over 50% of the packets on IPv6. Comcast seems like one of the largest deployments of IPv6 for normal consumers outside of the cell companies.

> Their default is to give a /60, which seems appropriately overkill. A /60 is pathetically small, with SLAAC you have 16 (!!) subnets for your whole network. With people having multiple computers and multiple phones, this is not enough even for a normal household of 3 people. If you are a IT person, with multiple computers and VMs, forget it. The recommended size of block that every ISP should give is /48 (RFC 6177)…

Comcast business users can get a /56 by requesting it in their dhcpv6 settings.

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#134

Post by ddalex »

vetinari wrote: post #102
beagle3 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without any explicit user action. It works, because most NAT implementations do not check the source IP address, so when user sends packets from port A to ip X, and the router receives packets to port A from ip Y, it will dutifully forward them, even if they are not related. That is completely untrue. The vast majority of home routers (I would venture 99% of them) run Linux, and use the built in NAT, which does che…

> That is completely untrue. The vast majority of home routers (I would venture 99% of them) run Linux, and use the built in NAT, which does check source IP, for both TCP and UDP connections Of course it is true. The true thing you wrote is, that Linux is one of the few implementations that do check the source IPs. However, even if many home routers do run Linux, it does not mean that they use Linux's NAT. Many do no…

I really don't know a lot about the hole-punching thing, can you please point me to some docs / demos / code / etc. available that would demonstrate this ?

Is there any exploit / known technique / program that allows you to explore a network behind a NAT without cooperation from inside ?

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#136

Post by pwinnski »

mino wrote: post #85
alex_duf wrote: post #80

Yet adoption is still growing exponentially https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html It's not as fast as past me would have hoped for and I think the criticism is perfectly valid but I'm quite happy to look at this graph no and again

Not really, see slide 4 of Geoff Huston's talk at RIPE76: https://ripe76.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/9-2... It is actually growing slower and slower and looking as a logistic curve, which is perhaps unsurprising. Also note the increasing gap between weekdays and weekends, which is a sign that enterprises don't care about v6.

That entire presentation is worth going through. The conclusion is great.

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#137

Post by joquarky »

grandinj wrote: post #20

What we should take away from the IPv6 debacle is a fine lesson in hubris. I was hanging out in the IPv6 mailing lists at the time the various solutions were being debated. The prevailing attitude was "the Internet is about to die from routing overload without IPv6, so we can stick whatever complexity we want inside it, and they will have no choice but to accept it." Except that new router hardware and new incrementa…

I've had this question for some time, and you mentioned that you were present during the debate phase.

I wonder if I could ask if there was any mention of a solution to expand IP address space in a manner similar to how UTF-8 expands as needed?

I'm not a SME on low-level protocols, but it seems the jump from 32 to 128 bits was an ambitious leap to future-proof and maybe a small part of the reason adoption is slowed.

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#138

Post by GvS »

M_Bakhtiari wrote: post #19
GvS wrote: post #16

I've enabled ipv6 on my ubuntu server recently and it was 100x slower. The only solution I found is to go back to ipv4: https://askubuntu.com/questions/759524/problem-with-ipv6-sud...

Was all IPv6 traffic slower or just this one apparently misconfigured host? If the former I'd image this is a kernel bug and has nothing to do with any Ubuntu servers.

All IPv6 traffic. Checking out from bitbucket took 6 minutes instead of 10 seconds.

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#139

Post by GvS »

Symbiote wrote: post #88
GvS wrote: post #16

I've enabled ipv6 on my ubuntu server recently and it was 100x slower. The only solution I found is to go back to ipv4: https://askubuntu.com/questions/759524/problem-with-ipv6-sud...

My Kubuntu desktop has IPv6, and I have no problems running apt. I just updated from 2001:878:346::116 / mirrors.dotsrc.org; no problems. Which mirror were you using, and did you file a report?

I used default mirrors and I didn't file a report because I'm not sure where and which part of the system is to blame. All IPv6 traffic was slow. This question is from 2 years ago so I assumed it's a known issue.

Re: Blockers to IPv6 Adoption

#140

Post by noinsight »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #132
noinsight wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARP was replaced by neighbor discovery protocol. Broadcast was replaced by multicast.

> ARP was replaced by neighbor discovery protocol. Would you be happy if we renamed NDP to ARPv6? Or is your suggestion that we continue to use ARP and put a more-than-four-byte-address into a fixed-size four byte field? > Broadcast was replaced by multicast. So, in IPv6 you can only send packets to a small subset of recipients, whereas in IPv4 you could address a packet to "every IPv4 device on the planet"? Or are y…

I don't have a problem with IPv6, I was just stating changes between it and v4.
Post reply on HN