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

Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

pc.nanog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#51

Post by floatboth »

icebraining wrote: post #24
y0ghur7_xxx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you do if your cellular provider goes IPv6-only, but your home ISP will only give you a v4 address? Get a tunnel from he[1] and access the home network through that. [1] https://tunnelbroker.net/

Or use a Tor hidden service, and get end-to-end encryption for free (see https://github.com/AnarchoTechNYC/meta/wiki/Connecting-to-an... )

I've tried to use onioncat to get from anywhere to NATed home. Performance sucked too much. Switched to an openvpn instance on a VPS :D

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#52

Post by ancarda »

ajdlinux wrote: post #50
metafunctor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but anything in the US hasn't really been in the forefront of IPv6 adoption.

Google's IPv6 statistics ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... ) show that the US is ahead of literally every other country in the world, so I think it's fair to say US ISPs aren't doing too badly.

Belgium (50.02%) is ahead of the USA (37.19%) on that chart, although you may have missed that as it's quite a small country. Click "Europe" to zoom in a bit.

Alternative data from Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country -- is quite a bit different but shows Belgium (50.45%) and India (50.27%) are both slightly ahead the US (49.28%).

It's very hard to measure IPv6 adoption. I would personally go with Google's measurements as I suspect the numbers are higher on Facebook because fewer people access Facebook at work, where those networks tend to have less IPv6.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#53

Post by dEnigma »

icebraining wrote: post #22
singularity2001 wrote: post #12

Is it reasonable to hate and avoid IPv6 for fears of further privacy erosion (easier tracking than with IPv4)? With IPv4 my ISP has to shuffle IPs with every reconnect. With IPv6 you could get one IP for lifetime? While ISP that hand out a static IPv4 can exist, it's much more unlikely, whereas with IPv6 it will become the norm.

Are they that unlikely? My IPv4 is stable for months/years, despite being "dynamic". I don't even run a dynamic DNS client, since it's so rare that it actually changes.

It really depends on the ISP. Back when we were still using A1 (what used to be the Austrian telecom basically), we would receive a new IP address every time we reconnected. Now after switching to Liwest (a very local provider, only serves this city and some small towns around it) our IP is for all intents and purposes static, even though it wasn't advertised as such.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#54

Post by bogomipz »

kazen44 wrote: post #20
emilfihlman wrote: post #17

I just wish IPV6 was mostly about adding more bits to the addresses instead of the clusterfuck that they introduced.

the "clusterfuck" the introduced is mostly a nice thing in my opinion. Things like MTU path-discovery, NDP and SLAAC make a lot of sense and are definitely improvements over the solutions we have in IPv4. Broadcast makes little sense on a layer 3 perspective. The use of link-local and unique-global addresses also makes sense, and having a different address class for multicast makes implementing multicast more conveni…

I agree with all of your points. I didn't understand this however:

>"and having a different address class for multicast makes implementing multicast more convenient."

IPV4 has a different class for multicast as well - the first 4 bits are 1110. IP range 224.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255.

Or did you mean something else?

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#55

Post by Fnoord »

azernik wrote: post #43
skrause wrote: post #13

Looking at mechanisms like 464XLAT, why are these currently favored over DS-Lite [1]? To me DS-Lite seems like a simple and elegant solution if you don't have a lot of public IPv4 addresses, 464XLAT looks much more compilcated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism#Dual...

464XLAT is simpler because it gets to piggyback off of other infrastructure that is already in place for forward-compatibility, namely NAT64 and DNS64. Not sure how much of this background you need, but since Wikipedia doesn't explain it well: as an ISP, you want your IPv6-only customers to be able to access the IPv4 internet. So you represent the entire IPv4 internet as an IPv6 prefix (generally ::ffff:0:0:0/96) and…

Would 464XLAT allow you to connect to e.g. Emby over IPv4, SSH port forwarding over IPv4, and BitTorrent to work (where majority of clients use IPv4) where it doesn't with DS-Lite/CGN?

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#56

Post by jessaustin »

pilif wrote: post #49
devereaux wrote: post #5

On my home network, all my device have IPv6. Unfortunately, it not native IPv6: the AT&T LTE device I use for my home internet doesn't support IPv6. (Why LTE? It's a long story- I frequently travel, and I take my connection with me. Comcast doesn't make much sense. LTE latency and bandwidth are good enough) Anyway, whenever I get a server, I make sure IPv6 is supported. No IPv6, no business from me -- even for a VPS.…

> I can always ssh to any of my machines (or the VMs) from anywhere. It's just simpler. Exposing an sshd to the public internet seems very risky. IPv6 or not. Even with v6 in your LAN, you probably still want the firewall to drop all incoming connections and then use some kind of VPN or bastion host to get inside

GP probably has password login turned off in sshd...

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#57

Post by virtuallynathan »

Eech0Shu wrote: post #32

Sadly the "happy eyeballs" algorithm obscures IPv6 problems. For example some subnets of amazon cloudfront are v4-reachable from my ISP while being v6-unreachable. But others are v6-reachable. When a DNS name points to a mix of v4 and v6 addresses nobody notices the failure because browsers are quick to fall back to v4 and thus the issue never gets reported. The other problem is that such issues are difficult to repo…

Do you have examples of these subnets? ping me @ nahtnow at amazon dot com.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#58

Post by moduspwnens14 »

ohazi wrote: post #7
Sirened wrote: post #3

I'm glad that someone is finally doing this. We all really need someone to force us to migrate to v6 finally, and I only did that once I realized I couldn't access my home network over cellular anymore.

What do you do if your cellular provider goes IPv6-only, but your home ISP will only give you a v4 address?

Apple has been requiring all apps on the App Store work on IPv6-only networks for two years now [1]. They require it work on a network with NAT64 and DNS64 set up.

Essentially your device gets only an IPv6 address and the router translates IPv4 addresses to IPv6 ones. Your DNS server does the same thing. The end result is that your device talks only native IPv6, but the router is translating back and forth as necessary for IPv4.

It's actually pretty easy to test if you have an extra Mac laying around. There's a hidden checkbox on the Network preferences pane that lets any Mac create a NAT64 / DNS64 WiFi network [2].

[1] https://developer.apple.com/support/ipv6/ [2] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ne...

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#59

Post by Fnoord »

pilif wrote: post #49
devereaux wrote: post #5

On my home network, all my device have IPv6. Unfortunately, it not native IPv6: the AT&T LTE device I use for my home internet doesn't support IPv6. (Why LTE? It's a long story- I frequently travel, and I take my connection with me. Comcast doesn't make much sense. LTE latency and bandwidth are good enough) Anyway, whenever I get a server, I make sure IPv6 is supported. No IPv6, no business from me -- even for a VPS.…

> I can always ssh to any of my machines (or the VMs) from anywhere. It's just simpler. Exposing an sshd to the public internet seems very risky. IPv6 or not. Even with v6 in your LAN, you probably still want the firewall to drop all incoming connections and then use some kind of VPN or bastion host to get inside

> Exposing an sshd to the public internet seems very risky. IPv6 or not.

That depends on factors.

Personally, I prefer an SNT/VPN such as ZeroTier or WireGuard. SSH would suffice, so would SSH over Tor. Thing is though; you only need to expose 1 of these to public internet. The rest is redundant. Which can be useful though.

Re: Going IPv6 Only [pdf]

#60

Post by eeZah7Ux »

icebraining wrote: post #24
y0ghur7_xxx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you do if your cellular provider goes IPv6-only, but your home ISP will only give you a v4 address? Get a tunnel from he[1] and access the home network through that. [1] https://tunnelbroker.net/

Or use a Tor hidden service, and get end-to-end encryption for free (see https://github.com/AnarchoTechNYC/meta/wiki/Connecting-to-an... )

...and server authentication, and optional client authentication.
Post reply on HN