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

What drives IPv6 deployment?

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#31

Post by vetinari »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #19
thomseddon wrote: post #14

We're an ISP, most of our customers are businesses. Of those, around 50% opt for a pre-configured LAN (i.e. we do NAT and usually CGNAT too). For the rest we provide a static IP address, so we'll allocate a /30 (block of 4), and they get a single usable address which they will assign to their own manged router/firewall. For the majority of our customers "networking" is either handled as overflow for their in/out IT r…

Those are basically the same reasons why I don't use v6 at home and have turned it off in my home router. Everything just works with v4. v6 is a potential source of error and/or security risk. I haven't felt the need to learn more about v6, and it is quite complex so it'll take me a day or so to learn enough to be able to configure my network and know that I haven't screwed that up. But I keep putting that off. There…

I actually find IPv6 simpler than IPv4. It is extra address space plus some warts fixed.

However, at home I'm using IPv4 + henet tunnel, because the native IPv6 offer from the ISP is unacceptable. At work, we are using IPv4 only, and no plans to switch, because it would be extra work with zero benefits.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#32

Post by heavenlyblue »

Slartie wrote: post #25
kccqzy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That must be hundreds or even thousands of users behind a single address No, ChinaNet has 2.86 users per IPv4 address. China Unicom has 2.79. Far less than Indian carriers. Source: TFA

I've seen those numbers, but they are idealized and only of theoretical nature. They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of which there are probably some within the theoretical IPv4 space available to a provider, and they do not account for self-used addresses by the provider that aren't within the blocks used to assign to customers. In addition, as I described, I assume the providers…

>> They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of which there are probably some within the theoretical IPv4 space available to a provider

You wouldn’t believe what a nation with an incredibly cheap labour can do. I can see how they just allocate a few engineers-technicians just to do allocation.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#33

Post by kiallmacinnes »

mirimir wrote: post #12
hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

Yes, I've never been comfortable with the device specificity of IPv6. Sure, temporary non-local addresses are now the norm. And they're usually not MAC-based. But still, I'd rather have IPv4 with NAT. Also, there's the issue that many VPN services don't yet route IPv6, and so IPv6 connections can bypass the VPN connection.

Honestly, that sounds like a failing of the VPN services.

At the least, they should push a null default route to users that connect (assuming we're talking about the kind of VPN services that advertise as "protect your privacy with a VPN!").

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#34

Post by pas »

Slartie wrote: post #25
kccqzy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That must be hundreds or even thousands of users behind a single address No, ChinaNet has 2.86 users per IPv4 address. China Unicom has 2.79. Far less than Indian carriers. Source: TFA

I've seen those numbers, but they are idealized and only of theoretical nature. They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of which there are probably some within the theoretical IPv4 space available to a provider, and they do not account for self-used addresses by the provider that aren't within the blocks used to assign to customers. In addition, as I described, I assume the providers…

Aren't those numbers calculated the same way? So they should be directly comparable. Why do you think that the subnet structure problem is not present for the other ISPs?

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#35

Post by acd10j »

I for one find clean slate tech approach adopted by Reliance Jio in India very inspiring. IPv6 support from start which saves it tons of money for buying IPv4 addresses , similar to their decision to adopt native 4G LTE Volte from start that helps it save tons of bandwidth on voice compared to Legacy 2G , 3G voice options.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#36

Post by tuyiown »

> These days it's a client server network. Clients do not need persistent network-wide identity, and only need addresses as and when they communicate with servers. Servers do not need persistent identity either these days, as the identity of a server is a name-based distinguisher rather than an address-based identifier.

This is not the internet I've been sold in my youth, and this statement makes me sad and angry.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#37

Post by lukeqsee »

vetinari wrote: post #29
p1mrx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is not that HE.net tunnels require a static IPv4 address, it's that your ISP won't connect you to the whole Internet. Tunnels are garbage. You should either switch ISPs, or complain and wait.

> Tunnels are garbage. You should either switch ISPs, or complain and wait. While the HE tunnel is somewhat limited (does it peak at 50 Mbps?), I find it's implementation way better than some ISPs that provide native IPv6. HEnet at least provides more than single /64, and does not force a specific, limited router on you.

> does it peak at 50 Mbps?

I'm not certain about speed, but I did experience quite high latency during peak local traffic times (which went away when disabling IPv6).

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#38

Post by Slartie »

pas wrote: post #34
Slartie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen those numbers, but they are idealized and only of theoretical nature. They do not account for unusable IPv4 addresses due to subnet structures, of which there are probably some within the theoretical IPv4 space available to a provider, and they do not account for self-used addresses by the provider that aren't within the blocks used to assign to customers. In addition, as I described, I assume the providers…

Aren't those numbers calculated the same way? So they should be directly comparable. Why do you think that the subnet structure problem is not present for the other ISPs?

I've never claimed that. My claim was that the real number of customers per IP is probably magnitudes higher than the 2.xx factor from these numbers. The magnitude of "hundreds" might be a bit overblown, but that does not change the claims' general direction.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#39

Post by rocqua »

vetinari wrote: post #28
tolien wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BSkyB is a fixed line broadband provider, but in the UK it's usual for the ISP to supply the router Yeah, this is where the “IPv6 is different^Wcomplicated to set up” argument falls flat for me. For most (consumer) users (at least in the UK), they get a free router from their ISP that’s already configured to do IPv4 NAT. For the minority that buy their own hardware, IPv4 NAT is enabled by default in hardware target…

What isn't really helping adoption of IPv6 support now is attitude of some ISPs. There are ISPs that use migration to IPv6 as a way to tighten their reign over users. They will give you DS-lite only (ok...), but with /64 (no /56, no /48). They will force their router on you, where in past with IPv4 they would provide an option for bridge. Their router cannot do PD (if it had more than /64, so maybe that's the reason…

I wonder to what degree this is simply because the Interface for proper IPv6 management has had less work and therefore is much more restricted.

On the router I bought myself, there are a lot of settings for IPv4, and not a lot more than an 'enable-disable' toggle for IPv6. I guess this is so they can state 'supports IPv6', but for any real use, it is useless.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#40

Post by krupan »

kiallmacinnes wrote: post #30
hjfa0j wrote: post #10

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm happy with CG-NAT because of the security and privacy benefits. This thing of having a per-device IP address looks like the wet dream of marketers and those newspapers that won't let you look at more than X articles a month. No thanks.

NAT, including CG-NAT really provides no security benefits. Too many comments, blogs, etc, have been written on this topic for me to reiterate the specifics here. NAT, including CG-NAT, provides near zero privacy benefits. Nobody is tracking by IP address - there are far, far, far, more accurate ways, again, I won't reiterate all the ways this happens, Google it (or is the TLS session resumption one still on the fron…

I agree with the statement that NAT provides no privacy benefits, but there are security benefits to NAT. As Robert Graham says, "NAT is a firewall. It's the most common firewall. It's the best firewall."

https://blog.erratasec.com/2017/01/nat-is-firewall.html

Post reply on HN