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

271–280 of 399 posts

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#271

Post by 4bpp »

Dagger2 wrote: post #246
4bpp wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is. In cases like the one addressed in Belgium, the ISP actually assigns the same outward-facing IP address to multiple unrelated customers, and NAT is performed on the ISP side. Somebody who has merely recorded the IP address that made a request therefore has no legal way of determining that it came from you or someone close to you, rather than a number of complete strangers who…

That would normally be called CGNAT. Yes, that does change things somewhat... except what's actually going to happen is that people will record the port number and the time as well as the IP, and the ISP is going to record every single connection you make in a big database, and then bill you for the privilege of doing it. Law enforcement will still be able to identify you, now your ISP has a record of everything you'…

As far as I know, several court cases in Germany have confirmed[1] that the mapping of dynamically assigned IP to customer identity may only be stored for 7 days. I imagine the same upper bound, or an even tighter one, applies to the records you are talking about.

[1] https://www.e-recht24.de/news/datenschutz/10387-datenschutz-... (in German)

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#272

Post by yardstick »

magila wrote: post #260
yardstick wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one thing lack of NAT makes it much easier to deal with multi-homed systems. It’s the opposite imo. Lack of NAT makes it impossible to do policy based routing enforced at a router level, eg route VoIP over ISP 1, and Web over ISP 2. Without NAT, each IPv6 PC is issued one or more IP addresses per WAN, but has no idea when it’s appropriate to use one over the other. (SLAAC router advertisements aren’t sophistica…

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I mentioned negative externalities elsewhere in this thread. NAT is nice if you want to do things like that, but those sorts of tricks create big problems for people like me. Being behind NAT with multiple external IPs and an unknown policy for which gets used when is a nightmare scenario for P2P applications.

The router admin would ideally configure which ISP to use for your P2P traffic, and possibly add some inbound port fowards (if applicable).

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#273

Post by Wowfunhappy »

the8472 wrote: post #221
geofft wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is IPv6 more attractive for address exhaustion than IPv4 NAT? As the article argues, you can't run IPv6-only. You need some strategy to reach IPv4 services on the internet because the internet is IPv4. That answer is going to be either publicly routable IPv4, IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT, or IPv4-to-IPv6 NAT. If you do the latter (or if you do dual stack) you can route directly to other IPv6 hosts without NAT - but what's th…

NAT has many severe limitations. When I was on an ISP with CGNAT I regularly saturated the connection tracking tables which resulted in all new connections failing until some some slots were freed up. NAT also makes it difficult to run any kind of server at home (PCP support varies) or use any kind of p2p protocol. NAT traversal techniques don't work all the time and even when they work they may only help for coordin…

> NAT also makes it difficult to run any kind of server at home (PCP support varies) or use any kind of p2p protocol.

I care about this greatly, but I'm not clear that ISP's do. On the contrary, my ISP's TOS states that I'm technically not allowed to run my own server on my home internet plan.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#274

Post by lkdjjdjjjdskjd »

I really want to enable ipv6 on my web site, but then I heard horror stories about connections failing if not all routers between the client and the server have ipv6 enabled.

Apparently at least for a while, browsers would not try the same request again via ipv4, so the site would simply be unreachable.

Perhaps browsers have become smarter about that, but it really makes me wary about enabling ipv6. I have no immediate benefit besides "doing the right thing", and some possible downsides.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#275

Post by guan »

geofft wrote: post #49
magila wrote: post #29

What we really need is a killer app that requires end-to-end connectivity. Users have little reason to care about IPv6 right now because the existing ecosystem of services has evolved around the constraints of NAT. As IPv6 deployment expands hopefully we will reach a point where some great new application becomes economically viable. My biggest fear is such an application not emerging quickly enough. Without an imper…

My ISP (Verizon FiOS in NYC) does not offer IPv6 support at all. Users have asked for years. They've promised it for years. It's still not there. So it's not a matter of users asking. Re switching, I think I have one or maybe two alternatives; I'm not sure if they support IPv6 either, and they have their downsides too. Any potential killer app is going to have to decide whether they want to lose such users, because I…

Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) supports IPv6 and is available in much of New York City.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#276

Post by a2dictator »

We should have really gone with an ""IPv5"", because IPv6 tries to boil the ocean. We do not need that many ip addresses and now we will rarely be able to recall specific IPv6 addresses like IPv4 addresses.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#277

Post by shaklee3 »

j1vms wrote: post #85
apple4ever wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TLS is a great example of how to do it. IPv6 is a great example of how not to.

> TLS is a great example of how to do it. ASCII -> UTF8 VHS -> DVD not as successful: DVD -> BluRay : timing was rather close to the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, etc.

You forgot DVD to HD-DVD too

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#278

Post by Aeolun »

gbrayut wrote: post #264
pedrocx486 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- If you go around memorising addresses then you are doing IT wrong in general. Because I'll surely have an TLD for my local nginx and for my home router...

Just use home.arpa from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8375 with a custom DNS server or host file. Or one of the many dynamic DNS systems.

Sure, because a custom DNS server is easy to set up.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#279

Post by syncsynchalt »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #273
the8472 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT has many severe limitations. When I was on an ISP with CGNAT I regularly saturated the connection tracking tables which resulted in all new connections failing until some some slots were freed up. NAT also makes it difficult to run any kind of server at home (PCP support varies) or use any kind of p2p protocol. NAT traversal techniques don't work all the time and even when they work they may only help for coordin…

> NAT also makes it difficult to run any kind of server at home (PCP support varies) or use any kind of p2p protocol. I care about this greatly, but I'm not clear that ISP's do. On the contrary, my ISP's TOS states that I'm technically not allowed to run my own server on my home internet plan.

P2P isn't just file sharing and home servers, for example the popular PS4/Xbox/PC game "Destiny" is all serverless P2P instances. I can't imagine an ISP banning you from playing PS4 games.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#280

Post by JorgeGT »

the8472 wrote: post #221
geofft wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is IPv6 more attractive for address exhaustion than IPv4 NAT? As the article argues, you can't run IPv6-only. You need some strategy to reach IPv4 services on the internet because the internet is IPv4. That answer is going to be either publicly routable IPv4, IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT, or IPv4-to-IPv6 NAT. If you do the latter (or if you do dual stack) you can route directly to other IPv6 hosts without NAT - but what's th…

NAT has many severe limitations. When I was on an ISP with CGNAT I regularly saturated the connection tracking tables which resulted in all new connections failing until some some slots were freed up. NAT also makes it difficult to run any kind of server at home (PCP support varies) or use any kind of p2p protocol. NAT traversal techniques don't work all the time and even when they work they may only help for coordin…

I've had the same experience when my ISP put me behind a CGNAT: the port table got reset every other day, and some other customer could have taken the port you wanted at that point, applications with ports hardcoded over number 2000 did not work because they could not be requested, people with PPTP VPNs could not use them anymore as GRE didn't work. Plus, enjoy getting banned from things because you share your IPv4 with plenty of strangers. The solution from the ISP was to give those who complained a "fixed IPv4 plan" for free, since that pulled you out of their IPv6+CGNAT deployment plan, at least for the moment.
Post reply on HN