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

Is there hope for IPv6?

internetgovernance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 399 posts

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#51

Post by vnw »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #20

The weird thing is that on some countries IPv4 only turned effectively into the premium offering. This is for instance the case in Austria where you generally have the option of ipv4 or ipv6 with dslite or worse only. All new contracts are ipv6 and the only way to get to ipv4 is via customer support. However right now ipv4 gives you the better experience.

I don't believe it's weird, in fact, I think it's natural. IPv4 is better (because every single machine and server has IPv4 connectivity, unlike IPv6) and available addresses are getting scarce. Therefore, IPv4 access with no CG-NAT is turning into a "premium" service.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#52

Post by geofft »

Kranar wrote: post #11
qwerty456127 wrote: post #9

Perhaps I just misunderstand IPv6 but I prefer IPv4 with NAT and temporarily leased public router address for privacy and security reasons. AFAIK IPv6 means every device gets assigned a stable unique address everybody can identify and reach it by. And I have never seen a SOHO WiFi router that would support IPv6 anyway (perhaps latest fancy expensive ones do).

IPv6 allows for so many IP addresses that you could give yourself a new IP address every minute and never worry about running out.

You could, but does your device actually do so? Are you confident that 100% of the devices you own use privacy addresses and do not leak non-privacy addresses?

The nice thing about IPv4 NAT is that you plug a single gadget in to your ISP's connection (cable modem, ONT, whatever), you connect your devices to that gadget, and it works out of the box and has all the security properties you'd expect, even if you're a person who hasn't ever thought about security properties and doesn't know what IP is and is still running Windows XP because your word processor still works fine. It might be unclean, but the benefits of this model are immense.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#53

Post by magila »

geofft wrote: post #31
Dylan16807 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a system that does take those incentives into account look like?

Loose coupling and no second system effect. IPv6 should have been extended address space and extended address space only, in a manner backwards-compatible with IPv4. You think ARP is broken? Great, implement a fixed version of ARP for both IPv4 and IPv6, meanwhile we'll spec IPv6 to use ARP. Don't design IPv6 to use your new thing called NDP that layers completely differently. You think everyone using NAT is wrong? G…

The thing about NAT that for network operators it is a negative externality. For them it often simplifies their job. They do not feel the searing pain it inflicts on network application developers. It's hard to come up with a carrot to convince operators that NAT is wrong because from their perspective it isn't, even if it harms the internet as a whole.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#54

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

apearson wrote: post #12
qwerty456127 wrote: post #9

Perhaps I just misunderstand IPv6 but I prefer IPv4 with NAT and temporarily leased public router address for privacy and security reasons. AFAIK IPv6 means every device gets assigned a stable unique address everybody can identify and reach it by. And I have never seen a SOHO WiFi router that would support IPv6 anyway (perhaps latest fancy expensive ones do).

I'm not sure what routers you've used or seen but every home router I've touched in the last 5 to 10 years has had the option to enable IPv6 in its settings. Also, IPv6 has a unique address that everybody can reach but most if not all routers have an IPv6 firewall that gives at least if not more security than NAT provides.

> IPv6 firewall that gives at least if not more security than NAT provides

That's just not true. NAT and firewall both achieve what little security they provide through simple blocking of packets based on state information. Firewalls generally provide more robust state information, but NAT is what lets you redirect sockets. They work together.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#55

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

joeseeder wrote: post #21

Yup, now you have to go out of your way to not support it. Literary, every modern ISP, hosting or Cloud provides it. Every Operating System, be it server or client or router, supports IPv6.

> Literary, every modern ISP

This is either factually incorrect, or else you're using a definition of "modern" that excludes a substantial portion of real world isps.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#56

Post by lisper »

keypress wrote: post #45
lisper wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we really need is a killer app that requires end-to-end connectivity. That seems unlikely to emerge. Anything you can do with end-to-end connectivity you can do with a server in the middle forwarding packets. Servers are cheap and reliable, so there's very little incentive to get rid of them.

I still like the idea of a peer to peer web, with something like hosting in your own browser. This could be a great alternative fallback network with distributed DNS. Most phones are capable. Energy, speed and security are concerns, but in cracking them you'd probably make the web a better place.

I like that idea too. A lot of geeks like that idea. But ordinary people couldn't care less. All they care about is that their latest instagram photo gets a lot of likes. They neither know nor care what goes on under the hood. Unfortunately, that ignorance and apathy is what drives the market.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#57

Post by geofft »

magila wrote: post #53
geofft wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loose coupling and no second system effect. IPv6 should have been extended address space and extended address space only, in a manner backwards-compatible with IPv4. You think ARP is broken? Great, implement a fixed version of ARP for both IPv4 and IPv6, meanwhile we'll spec IPv6 to use ARP. Don't design IPv6 to use your new thing called NDP that layers completely differently. You think everyone using NAT is wrong? G…

The thing about NAT that for network operators it is a negative externality. For them it often simplifies their job. They do not feel the searing pain it inflicts on network application developers. It's hard to come up with a carrot to convince operators that NAT is wrong because from their perspective it isn't, even if it harms the internet as a whole.

As a network application developer I haven't felt much pain from NAT - I need to run a central server to relay connections, but that's about it. And oftentimes I need to run a central server anyway for discovery or authentication. (A few years ago I worked at a startup that enabled secure remote access to corporate networks, as in you could connect from a roaming laptop or mobile app into the network, browse the web, access network file shares, etc. We had a straightforward and uncomplicated proxy server with access control that we asked people to install and forward a port on their NAT for; it worked fine. We prototyped a relay server that customers could run in AWS, where our proxy server would connect outbound. I don't think any customers absolutely needed it. And we definitely preferred having one of our servers involved somehow as an intermediary so that customers weren't exposing Windows file shares to the public internet and hoping Windows authentication was enough....)

What do you find as searing pain?

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#58

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

magila wrote: post #53
geofft wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Loose coupling and no second system effect. IPv6 should have been extended address space and extended address space only, in a manner backwards-compatible with IPv4. You think ARP is broken? Great, implement a fixed version of ARP for both IPv4 and IPv6, meanwhile we'll spec IPv6 to use ARP. Don't design IPv6 to use your new thing called NDP that layers completely differently. You think everyone using NAT is wrong? G…

The thing about NAT that for network operators it is a negative externality. For them it often simplifies their job. They do not feel the searing pain it inflicts on network application developers. It's hard to come up with a carrot to convince operators that NAT is wrong because from their perspective it isn't, even if it harms the internet as a whole.

If NAT is wrong, then firewalls that block incoming connections by default are also wrong. I think you'll have a hard time making that argument.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#59

Post by Waterluvian »

kens wrote: post #36
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #15

I hope (but am skeptical) that folks look at the overall failure of ipv6 from a deployment perspective to understand the root causes of why it failed (some may think "failure" is too strong a word, but I remember v6 being "just around the corner" in 2000, yet in 2019 I'm still connecting to a GCP database with v4). Coming up with a solution that looks like a huge technological advancement, with no real respect for th…

It seems like a lot of technology transitions go smoothly, while others painfully drag on for a decade (ipv6, Python3). Are there any common root causes for the semi-failures? Has anyone written about why some succeed and some don't?

With both my personal experience is: "leave me alone, I'm here to solve a problem, not migrate."

For new projects I use ipv6 where easy and python3.6 where possible.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#60

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

vnw wrote: post #50
Kranar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 allows for so many IP addresses that you could give yourself a new IP address every minute and never worry about running out.

Every time I see a conversation about IPv6, this argument comes up. Is "it's got a gorillion IP addresses" the only redeemable quality IPv6 has?

It's less a redeeming quality and more the entire reason why we bothered to switch to a new system. So yes, that is the point.
Post reply on HN