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

341–350 of 399 posts

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#341

Post by xvilka »

pas wrote: post #220
xvilka wrote: post #153

IPv6 is already a success in mobile and IoT, and in countries that matter in economical sense. The rest will follow automatically because they have no choice. More worrying issues are BGP and SS7 reliance in global networks, and there are no viable alternatives on the horizon.

Could you expand on these problems? Why is SS7 an issue? (Aren't telcos moving to IP based platforms? Device registration on towers can work on whatever protocol the device supports the base station encapsualtes/proxy-es/processes that further, and the telco can use whatever routing it wants internally - eg iBGP. Or even some fancy OpenFlow based control plane.) And of course the issues with BGP seem even more intere…

The SS7 protocol stack is soaked with security problems, but also because it doesn't represent the modern nature of traffic. Of course, telecoms moving to IP cores and such, but SS7 still widely used mostly because of the interoperability and roaming. Positive Security recently made a summary report of the current status of the problem[1]. BGP main problem is the inherent trust to users and servers, thus allowing malicious actors or even some errors to do weird things with network traffic. See this[2] Black Hat talk quickly summarizing them.

[1] https://www.ptsecurity.com/ww-en/analytics/ss7-vulnerability...

[2] https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-03/bh-us-03-co...

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#342

Post by glogla »

logifail wrote: post #205
mrweasel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have been getting native IPv6 from my ISP for nearly six years now. Meanwhile Danish ISPs refuse to implement IPv6 because: There's no demand. That completely missing the point and their responsibility in my opinion. There's never going to be any significant IPv6 demand from private users. At work however we have customers that have started to request IPv6 only devices and networks, because there's no need for IPv…

>> Meanwhile Danish ISPs refuse to implement IPv6 because: There's no demand. That completely missing the point and their responsibility in my opinion. Responsibility to whom ? If there's no significant demand from end-users for something, then we're relying on there being a benefit for access providers. >> For IPv6 to be successful the ISPs need to role it out, regardless of demand. >> regardless of profitability Ca…

> Can anyone give examples of a successful technology roll-out where there was no demand, and no profit to be made?

Seat belts, airbags and other safety systems in cars (like ABS, VSC, etc). Emission control systems in cars.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#343

Post by Bombthecat »

kiallmacinnes wrote: post #337
devillius wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sadly, plenty of ISPs use DS-Lite with a single /64 issued. (I'm looking at you UPC/Virgin Media/Liberty Global)

Vodafone cable in germany does the same..

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#345

Post by yholio »

phicoh wrote: post #171
gregmac wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- No transition or migration design. It seems like IPv6 was designed as if it was being built instead of building IPv4, and didn't consider how the move would happen beyond something like "everyone run dual-stack IPv4/IPv6, and once that's at 100% we'll turn off IPv4." This results in a stale-mate of sorts: As a server operator, as long as you have IPv4-only clients, you need an IPv4 address. There are no [1] IPv6-on…

To some extent this is unavoidable. Anything that is 'IPv4-like with larger addresses' is very much incompatible with any IPv4 equipment or setup at the edge. You could design something where the IPv4 could be left unchanged in the core of the Internet. But the core of the Internet has supported IPv6 for a long time, it is the edges where the problems are. Just something as simple as writing an address to a log file…

> Anything that is 'IPv4-like with larger addresses' is very much incompatible with any IPv4 equipment or setup at the edge.

I disagree somewhat. You could imagine a hierarchical routing structure where IPv4 NAT servers double as IPv4ext routers and gateways. All current servers maintain an IPv4 address which, if the server is unaware of IPv4ext, will not be able to decode things like full client IP address for loging, giving an incentive for server operators to upgrade.

Meanwhile, unaware client end-points connect to IPv4ext servers just as before, via NAT, but of course don't have end to end connectivity to other IPv4ext clients, giving them a (weak) incentive to upgrade.

This would go on for a decade or two just like it did with IPv6, until the moment where virtually all firmware and software is upgraded. At this point carrier grade NATs would stop mangling, the IPv4 only packets are dropped from the core and full non-hierarchical routing can commence on the full IPv4ext address field, finally solving the IPv4 exhaustion problem, in addition to the already solved e2e problem.

I agree this backwards compatible deployment scenario is much more convoluted than a clean slate redesign, and it's hard to imagine it could have seen preferable in the 90s, before wide-spread carrier NAT was a thing.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#346

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pseudalopex wrote: post #293
4bpp wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my assumption was always that in a scenario such as: ISP makes me share my public-facing IP with 15 randos -> I get on a torrent for Sony Corporate Secrets [full pack] [2018].zip -> Sony's legal department connects a honeypot and harvests all IPs it sees on it and sends out subpoenae to identify everyone who is in a friendly jurisdiction, the circumstance that I'm NATted by my provider will actually do nontrivi…

Your ISP would usually have port mapping logs.

GDPR in theory means that we should be able to tell exactly what data ISPs have about us.

But surely you can visit a McDonald's car park, run tor-browser and download whatever that Sony thing was without being traced.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#347

Post by jayflux »

chrononaut wrote: post #88
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because I get assigned a new prefix every 24 hours Which kinda defeats the purpose of having a globally reachable unique address in a lot of respects. How am I supposed to allow connections to this device in my firewall if the address is always changing?

There's advantages and disadvantages to this approach. When we're talking about residential networks, some consumers won't care about the inability to do that, some will. Those that do care also have to weigh the privacy concerns about the fact that they have a now static prefix for their networks, much like static IPv4 addresses. Personally I'd prefer ISPs to take an approach like this by default, but allow the opti…

[devils advocate] ISPs are businesses, they are also there to make money, those customers who want a static address may have to pay extra to get one. They know static IPs are more valuable so they won’t give them out by default, ipv4 was the same.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#348

Post by matheweis »

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…

IPv6 adoption has been on an exponential growth curve for a long time, with an inflection point where it really started taking off around 2013. Google has some very solid stats to back this up https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

There are absolutely motivations and incentives for the advancement of IPv6, the most obvious of which is the exhaustion of IPv4 address space. The Notice the inflection point of IPv6 adoption in 2013 - this occurs in tandem with the real exhaustion of the IPv4 space. As IPv4 address space becomes increasingly expensive the financial incentives will grow stronger - recent block sales have the price approaching $18 PER IP: http://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing/

Cellular providers have particularly incentives to adopt IPv6, given that by just about any account there are more mobile devices in use globally than the entire IPv4 address space. Odds are good that if you’re using a major cellular provider, you’re actually accessing the internet over IPv6 directly. T-Mobile is apparently already in the process of decommissioning IPv4 entirely.

Work on IPv6 began nearly in tandem with work on NAT, which lasted as a stopgap longer than most expected.

Recognizing major risks to a global system and developing a complete solution a few years in advance of necessary adoption with the only miss being the estimate of how long the stopgap solution would remain viable doesn’t sound like a miss to me. The IETF engineers deserve a little more credit.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#349

Post by jayflux »

krylon wrote: post #38

I have been getting native IPv6 from my ISP for nearly six years now. It is not quite as cool as it could be, because I get assigned a new prefix every 24 hours, but still, IPv6 is there, and it "just works". When I connect to machines on my home network in any way involving avahi/zeroconf, the machines talk to each other via IPv6 by default. At work, it's a different story. I have drifted from a sysadmin/helpdesk ro…

Sounds like for privacy your ISP is shuffling the prefixes every day. They could also be doing this to upsell static IPs too, maybe a bit of both.

Re: Is there hope for IPv6?

#350

Post by cesarb »

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. It’s taking a simple problem (allow reversible, higher-bandwidth connections) and making it complex.

Actually, it's still simple. For devices and hosts using USB 2.0, the only real change with the USB-C connector is a single extra resistor. For devices and hosts using USB 3.x, they only have to detect which of two pins has the resistor on the other side to select which of the two high-bandwidth channels should be used. And there are two main types of cable: USB 2.0 cables and full-featured cables, like the old non-USB-C USB 2.0 and USB 3.x cables.

The extra complexity only appears when you want the extra features which are new to USB-C: higher voltage and/or current, alternate modes, using both high-bandwidth channels at the same time (USB 3.2), and so on.

Post reply on HN