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

321–330 of 399 posts

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#321

Post by devillius »

gerdesj wrote: post #245
lowercased wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point (and reply) about memorization was good. Yes, I'm not constantly remembering "210.40.138.43" but enough tech people need to remember some of these things - for debugging, support, etc - that IPv6 is painful. Asking someone to verify an IPv4 in a dialog setting is doable - an IPv6 is not. I've maintained for 2 decades that simply adding another 2 slots for 0-255 would have opened up a greatly usable amount.…

I use copy and paste for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. I understand where you are coming from by adding a few more bytes to the address scheme but one of the things IPv6 was designed for was massive address aggregation which means really short routing tables. Your 192.192.168.168.0.0 (say) scheme does not go far enough. Also, your scheme needs to be efficient in the world of bits and bytes and I don't think it is. Yo…

The recommendation is to assign a /56 to end users from an ISP. That would give you plenty of subnets to work with.

/56 == 256 /64s Each /64 == 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#322

Post by bwann »

pedrocx486 wrote: post #242
gerdesj wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a techie too but I think: - If you go around memorising addresses then you are doing IT wrong in general. So many things depend on DNS (not just A records) that punching in IPs by default is a bad habit. Browsers will keep on enforcing SSL/TLS more and more until the point where typing in an IP address into the URL bar will be as painful as using the web GUI for say an elderly HP switch is right now. - In general…

>- 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...

This is easily solved with mDNS/Avahi. I had the same gripe years ago, now my hosts advertise their own records or even on behalf of others without running a NS.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#323

Post by the8472 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #292
syncsynchalt wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recall reading that you could make P2P connections work behind a NAT by having an external server route the connections initially. Is this not true, or does it only work in some circumstances?

This is the "nat traversal techniques don't work all the time" caveat, especially with TCP.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#324

Post by hkt »

I've been saying it for years: IPv4+ would be fine. Just add more bits to addresses (maybe twice as many octets) and dual stack that instead.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#325

Post by tambre »

zzzcpan wrote: post #89
tambre wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's no wonder the transition to IPv6 has stopped Where are you getting that from? Looking at public IPv6 statistics from big companies shows that it's going up. Google's shows a 4.5% increase in IPv6 of total traffic during the past year[0]. Facebook's shows a 6% increase and at 55% for the US [1]. Meanwhile Mexico went from 5% IPv6 to 25% this year [2]. [0]: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html [1]…

These statistics are meaningless propaganda. What you should be interested in is the velocity of IPv6 adoption growth among ISPs and countries where adoption stopped all together, to know what to expect from actual adoption in coming years. (it's basically a failure btw)

> What you should be interested in is the velocity of IPv6 adoption growth among ISPs and countries where adoption stopped all together, to know what to expect from actual adoption in coming years. (it's basically a failure btw)

I don't understand. Are you telling me to look at how IPv6 adoption is among countries, where IPv6 usage growth has stopped? Are there any such countries? Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by "actual adoption". Every statistic I look at, as referenced in my previous comment, I see IPv6 usage continuing to grow. And you're calling that "propaganda"?

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#326

Post by berti »

bdamm wrote: post #304
AlphaSite wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry I'm not sure i understand: > Another wrong in the name of IPv6: 64 bit IPv6 prefixes from an ISP means you can only have one subnet. No way to put your dodgy IoT stuff on its own VLAN. Can't your router handle carving up a subnet just fine?

A lot of self-assigned IPv6 networks just tack on the device's 64-bit MAC address on to the end of some 64-bit network prefix. So if you're going with self-assignment of IPv6 addresses then you will have difficulty if your assigned prefix is already 64-bits, since you can't really use any of the 64-bit suffix bits for your own network.

The mechanism is called StateLess Address Auto-Configuration (SLAAC) [0]. It removes the need for DHCP, and the determinism is very convenient. There are of course privacy downsides for deterministic addresses that are globally routable, and that's where SLAAC privacy extensions come in [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Stateless_address_autocon...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#SLAAC_privacy_extensions

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#327

Post by leoc »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #160
leoc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DVD quality may be worse than you remember. The difference is really very clear on modern HD screens.

In my experience, only if you're really looking for it or play them side by side.

That hasn't been my experience. I was watching some instructional DVDs—well-produced, modern stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68ZP8tHhnc —on a desktop monitor lately and the difference really leaped out at me, despite my already knowing consciously that the video wouldn't be HD, and the fact that I'm far from being any connoisseur of video quality. Given that standard DVD resolution is never higher than 720 × 576 pixels it really shouldn't have been surprising.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#329

Post by owenversteeg »

7e wrote: post #93

This chart: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ... reports a steadily increasing adoption rate for IPv6. Is that rate somehow too slow? It currently stands at 25% of Google users.

Huh! I looked closer at the graph and wondered why the line was so fat. If you zoom in, a clear trend appears: far higher IPv6 usage on weekends. About 25% more people using IPv6 on weekends than weekdays. (IPv6 is 21% of the total on weekdays vs 26% on weekends.) I'm surprised there's such a big gulf.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#330

Post by AlphaSite »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #191
apple4ever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hit on the problem with IPv6 designers- they took a solution (bigger address space) to a problem (not enough addresses) and they added a bunch of other changes (No NAT, No DHCP, ARP vs NDP, weird address scheme, etc) that arguably made things worse. Then they wonder why people aren’t adopting it. (Its the same complaint I have against Let’s Encrypt. They shoved down a policy which is antithetical to helping their…

I think this is what will cause USB-C to fail. It’s taking a simple problem (allow reversible, higher-bandwidth connections) and making it complex. The latest spec requires encryption. In a cable. Which might be ok for some applications, but certainly not necessary for all items. Now you have so many versions, which may or may not implement a laundry list of features. And people just want simple, no fuss cables.

> I think this is what will cause USB-C to fail.

I think this ship has sailed. If the alt modes fail, that's fine, but the core spec is fine.

Post reply on HN