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

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#41

Post by privateSFacct »

tuyiown wrote: post #36

> 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.

Marketers or whatever your business is who depend on users having a persistent network wide identity are scammy. Many people who want at least a small CHANCE at privacy are happy with this situation (rotating IP addresses). Names are resolved through DNS, including load balancer endpoints where many names can share one IP.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#42

Post by Canada »

Slartie wrote: post #9

The outliers that surprised me the most are the big Chinese providers (ChinaNet and China Unicom) in the provider table. Despite them having much less IPv4 addresses than users, they appear to make no significant effort to get IPv6 deployed. What are they doing instead? Putting all users behind carrier-grade NAT that don't need dedicated IPv4 addresses? That must be hundreds or even thousands of users behind a single…

In China you don’t get to accept incoming connections without a license anyway, so there’s no legitimate purpose for the vast majority of users, including businesses, to have a routable address. Users only need to be able to initiate connections to sites preapproved by the government to accept user generated data.

To even call what China has “internet” is a bit of a stretch.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#43

Post by privateSFacct »

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…

I made a major push to try to get IPv6 running at a small business.

In the end, despite the ISP at the business supplying IPv6, and getting some client side IPv6 going with OTHER ISPS (a pain) it fell over because.

1) Things like the VPN client software didn't get routes right when client side network was IPv6 oriented so VPN connections broke - a no go.

2) We had to continue to offer ipv4, as folks in the field were not guaranteed an ipv6 connection back.

3) The WAN fallback / failover stuff didn't seem to work well with IPv6 (another ISP to work out IPv6 with).

4) Security folks continue to be worried about giving all machines in a business globally routable addresses. The tools say NOT to filter ICMP when you run ipv6 reachability, the security people say to filter ICMP. Too much of pain to figure out who is right and if/how ipv6 changed ICMP

5) ipv6 seemed to purposely make this transition harder than it needed to be. I don't get why they couldn't have kept a simpler / more familiar framework with ipv6 as an option, even if less ideal. Ie, DHCP vs autoconfig stuff, ICMPv4 style instead of having security folks worrying me about the weird things unfiltered ICMPv6 might do. Seriously, make the goodies / cool stuff the add ons.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#44

Post by chongli »

privateSFacct wrote: post #41
tuyiown wrote: post #36

> 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.

Marketers or whatever your business is who depend on users having a persistent network wide identity are scammy. Many people who want at least a small CHANCE at privacy are happy with this situation (rotating IP addresses). Names are resolved through DNS, including load balancer endpoints where many names can share one IP.

Privacy is not the same as anonymity. I would like to have a network-wide identity that I can use to authenticate and communicate with my friends and family. This is not the same thing as allowing marketers to track me.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#45

Post by mirimir »

kiallmacinnes wrote: post #33
mirimir wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!").

Yes, good ones handle that. Also firewall rules.

But crappy ones don't. And some people end up using crappy ones, because they don't know any better :(

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#46

Post by erikb »

tuyiown wrote: post #36

> 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.

Why does it make you sad and angry? It sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm especially happy that we went for human readable names rather than wierd letter/number combinations. Also nobody seems to know when to use these [] brackets around the addresses, and they are even hard to type for people who don't use the US keyboard layout. Last but not least NAT is not just a IP-range splitter but also a security feature.

I literally don't see a single thing to be sad about. Angry is even a little harder and honestly a little surprising.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#47

Post by rauhl »

chongli wrote: post #44
privateSFacct wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketers or whatever your business is who depend on users having a persistent network wide identity are scammy. Many people who want at least a small CHANCE at privacy are happy with this situation (rotating IP addresses). Names are resolved through DNS, including load balancer endpoints where many names can share one IP.

Privacy is not the same as anonymity. I would like to have a network-wide identity that I can use to authenticate and communicate with my friends and family. This is not the same thing as allowing marketers to track me.

That sounds awesome, but if it’s network-wide, then marketers (who are also in the network) can also use it. Even if it’s some sort of cryptographically-secure bitstring, all it would take is for you or one of your contacts to leak it once. I don’t think it’s possible to have a persistent, global, private identifier: they seem mutually-exclusive.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#49

Post by arghwhat »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #32
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…

>> 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.

"And over there, we have our DHCP server. Well, he's at his lunch break, but that's where he sits."

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#50

Post by tuomosipola »

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…

My ISP broke their IPv4 gateway one weekend. Fortunately they have their IPv6 stuff working in parallel. I was surprised that only maybe half of the Internet is reachable via IPv6, and there was no pattern which sites worked and which didn't. There's still some work to be done before IPv6 is usable.
Post reply on HN