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

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#81

Post by kalleboo »

tuomosipola wrote: post #50
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.

One Windows PC on our LAN got flipped into "internet sharing" mode, causing a DHCP battle which randomly killed IPv4 connectivity. That one was weird to diagnose at first since random sites still worked (ones with IPv6 support)

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#82

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#83

Post by beaconstudios »

phyzome wrote: post #70
erikb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Perhaps you don't remember the days when every computer on the internet was an equal peer. To be honest, I don't quite remember it either; I only caught the very tail end. But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers, and the internet is a sort-of-bipartite graph with two classes of citizens…

> But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers

You still can, and you really don't have to host with a big provider if you don't want to. The only reason we hear about it so much is because all the engineering articles come from people who work at companies with insanely high scaling requirements. If you want to throw up an XAMPP server at home you still can, though you'll need to acquire either a static IP or a dynamic DNS record to point people to.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#84

Post by bluGill »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #79
FrozenVoid wrote: post #20

It looks like only mobile networks are embracing the change to handles the volume of mobile devices. The evolution of WiFi/phone hardware is quite fast, so they're not stopped by anything legacy, no ipv4 only devices and no one needs static ip on mobile.

It does have an interesting effect though. Apple now have a mandate that apps must work in IPv6 only mode, so they need to be developed and tested for it. This in turn means they need an IPv6 network to test it on, giving enterprise a reason to at least enable it (even if they haven't transitioned any internal services).

I believe t-mobile forced that on apple. T-mobile sells enough Apple phones that they can call Apple and say we need this feature in all phones we sell and Apple will do it. It isn't clear who would lose more if t-mobile decided not to sell the iphone but it isn't one Apple would want to risk.

I have no doubt Apple already have people wanting to do this which is another reason Apple wouldn't push back. They already had people wanting to do this, and so getting a few business people who otherwise didn't care on-board is enough to push the decision.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#85

Post by erikb »

Uh7seidu wrote: post #51
erikb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

The end-to-end principle where any node on the internet can talk to any other one. This allows anyone to start a service and services (and people) talk to each other without intermediaries. It levels the playing field. Losing that concentrates power and takes options from individuals.

How so? It's just a way of representation. The power is still with the ISPs, backbone providers and governments. Power would only flow to the end user if the communication technology itself would enable him direct 1:1 communication to everybody else.

E.g. if everybody uses IPv6 China can still block you when you are located in their network. Not a single grain more power to you.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#86

Post by Symbiote »

beaconstudios wrote: post #83
phyzome wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you don't remember the days when every computer on the internet was an equal peer. To be honest, I don't quite remember it either; I only caught the very tail end. But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers, and the internet is a sort-of-bipartite graph with two classes of citizens…

> But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers You still can, and you really don't have to host with a big provider if you don't want to. The only reason we hear about it so much is because all the engineering articles come from people who work at companies with insanely high scaling require…

> though you'll need to acquire either a static IP or a dynamic DNS record

That's the whole point. With some ISPs using CG-NAT, you don't have a public IP.

I have three computers at home running an SSH server. Two have to be on non-default ports, since I only have one IP.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#87

Post by cosmie »

IPv6 drives me nuts. Not because it's inherently bad, but just because it's unpredictably and inconsistently implemented and supported.

I'm on a networking guy by any stretch, but I have enough experience to be competent at maintaining home, small business, and server environments.

My home provider, modem, router, and device all support IPv6, and when I found out I enabled it. And then, inexplicably, lost the ability to get the Nest app on my phone to connect. The only solve would be to toggle off Wifi and use cell service, let it connect to the Nest service, then turn Wifi back on (it'd work after that point, just couldn't get it to establish the initial connection). The only permanent resolution I could find was to turn IPv6 back off at the router level.

The irony is that both my home ISP (Comcast) and my mobile ISP (T-Mobile) are called out in that article as leading in IPv6 deployment. Yet their deployment strategy was varied, and only one led to an issue with connecting to Nest. While the issue was likely something with my internal network/router, if I couldn't figure it out then that gives me a glimpse on how frustrated non-technical users would be. That volatility in and of itself is what drives me nuts with IPv6.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#88

Post by tormeh »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #73
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.

> and this statement makes me sad and angry Your MAC and/or IP address should not identify you, and never should have been used as an identifier. It's the identity of a communication endpoint. If the OSI model is about making the core of the network stupid and fast, which has proven benefits of scalability and/or extensibility, then identity/authentication is not the network layer's job and never was. If a protocol a…

We need some kind of DNS-style federated service that can map the identity (MAC address?) of a non-stationary device to its IP address.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#89

Post by phyzome »

beaconstudios wrote: post #83
phyzome wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you don't remember the days when every computer on the internet was an equal peer. To be honest, I don't quite remember it either; I only caught the very tail end. But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers, and the internet is a sort-of-bipartite graph with two classes of citizens…

> But time was you could run a website off your home computer, or your own email server. Now you have to go pay money and hand over trust to one of the huge hosting providers You still can, and you really don't have to host with a big provider if you don't want to. The only reason we hear about it so much is because all the engineering articles come from people who work at companies with insanely high scaling require…

And in fact I run a Jabber server off my home IP. But if my ISP catches me at it, they could point to the line in their contract saying "no servers" and demand that I turn it off. (Or just block it outright.) They probably won't, but still.

Re: What drives IPv6 deployment?

#90

Post by mirimir »

pilif wrote: post #68
mirimir wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

Crappy ones also sometimes leak UDP packets. Or all DNS queries or whatever. If you use crappy VPNs it's your fault if you then don't get the protection you want, no matter the transport protocol. Or rather: Using IPv4 doesn't guarantee non-crapyness of a VPN provider. But: Working IPv6 support guarantees at least some level of proficiency by the VPN provider, so they might be more reliable candidates to begin with.

Crappy VPN services do all sorts of crappy stuff.

But there's more needed with IPv6 than routing properly. The VPN provider needs to assign IPv6 addresses to customers, and that's harder than just NATing stuff. It's almost like being an IPv6 ISP.

But I've done a toy implementation. To get "anonymous" IPv6 addresses, so I could test VPN service clients for IPv6 leaks, without pwning myself. I needed a little help from an IVPN engineer, but it wasn't that hard.

Post reply on HN