Earlier quoted context omitted.
.local?
Using .local in DNS is a violation of RFC6762. You really ought not to do this.
It's also too long for something you type a lot. I use .hm.
Is there hope for IPv6?
351–360 of 399 posts
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#352This 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.
A lot of home users have had IPv6 “silently” enabled, while many corporate networks have never implemented it, or only implemented it for a small portion of services that need it.
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a monumental mistake to make IPv6 incompatible with IPv4.
What do you mean "incompatible"? You can run both of them at the same time, they work on the same links, in the same OS stacks, with the same programs, and you can talk between them or tunnel over them with a variety of transition mechanisms (dual stack, Teredo, 6to4, 6rd, 6over4, ISATAP, 6in4/4in6, NAT64/DNS64, 464xlat, DS-lite, MAP-T/E, 4rd, LW4over6, ...). They're about as compatible as they can possibly be, given…
I mean that IPv6, to my (admittedly poor) understanding, does not contain a specification as to how to route "legacy" IPv4 packets. To have IPv4 packets work in an IPv6 network, you need a whole IPv4 infrastucture. And when you are there, you may as well just use IPv4.
But maybe I am mistaken. Does the IPv6 specification proposes way to map an IPv4 network inside an IPv6 one? Or are all these later hacks?
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 login…
There problem here is two fold:
1) As far as I know, nobody ever wrote down a protocol description, and preferably made an implementation. The devil is in the details. It is very hard to estimate if such a design would actually work.
2) At the moment, the core of the internet and just about all host operating system support IPv6. The hard part is getting the edge networks to upgrade. My guess is that your proposal would run into similar issues.
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 3 problems with IPv6 - There is a lot in IPv6 that is different from IPv4. Ignoring if those changes are good or bad, it does make the transition harder. - IPv6 was promoted way before there was demand. To some extent it is good to prepare people (and vendors). But it does create the impression that IPv6 is a failure - Demand for IPv6 is highly asymmetrical. The party that is out of IPv4 addresses needs IPv…
I never truly delved into low level networking, but I generally got a grasp for IPv4, I can setup simple networks and I think that I understand what's going on on every level. Now despite the fact that I tried to understand IPv6 multiple times, I failed miserably all the time. I tried to setup IPv6-over-IPv4 OpenVPN, it did not work despite all efforts. IPv6 is just too complex. At this point I wish that IPv6 would b…
IPv6 is in no way more complicated than IPv4, especially if you include all the things you need to make IPv4 work in practice (NAT, techniques for dealing with NAT, etc.). IPv6 is different which is probably why you are having trouble: you wanted something just like IPv4 but with larger addresses, but that is not IPv6. For me the key to understanding IPv6 was to view it as something totally different, and not try to map my understanding of IPv4 onto IPv6.
Now I am aggressively against IPv4, because over and over I see problems resulting from NAT, or collisions in private address ranges on two LANs, or broken path MTU discovery, etc. The only arguments for IPv4 are economic or political; at this point the technical debate is over and IPv6 is a clear winner (the majority of technical problems in IPv6 deployment are related to compatibility with IPv4).
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
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_extens…
More precisely, disabling the autonomous addressing flag in the router advertisement packet allows you to completely control the addresses which will then only be handled by DHCPv6, which allows you to slice a /64. But that means no v6 temporary addresses for anonymisation, which might be exactly what you want in a managed network/corporate scenario which requires liability tracing.
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#357Earlier 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.
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 per…
> Are you confident that 100% of the devices you own use privacy addresses and do not leak non-privacy addresses?
I've heard stories, but I've never seen a modern operating system without privacy extensions in the wild. Maybe XP, but did XP have IPv6 enabled by default? As far as I know it didn't.
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can tell the difference between my prefix changing and adresses within a prefix changing.
Ah I see, the _prefix_ is changing. Wonder why your ISP is doing that … ?
Possibly because they charged more for static IPv4 addresses and wanted to continue to receive that income with IPv6.
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#359IPv6 is so 90s. Put a pink lens and design a global network where are good people. Netizens as were called.
Give an IPv6 with last digits of the MAC address is unacceptable today. Unique IP per device maybe dangerous.
Today tracking exists and is smart, some organizations are logging bittorrent activity. People buys VPN, right?
Really I love shared IPv4 at my University (although they have a /16). Maybe there are thousands of devices behind. Google Ads becomes crazy. I only want privacy.
Re: Is there hope for IPv6?
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are great apps "requiring" end-to-end connectivity. Cryptocurrency clients, various videochat solutions, many multiplayer games, bittorrent clients, etc. They either force you to set up port forwarding (unless they can do it themselves using UPnP), or they use STUN/ICE or any of the other NAT traversal techniques. As a last resort it's often sufficient if enough of your users are reachable from the outside and…
Exactly. We already have "the killer app". Or several killers apps. But we also have a NAT punching. And that works. Does it take blood and tears to make it work? Certainly. But not so many to make it infeasible.
Where it would be really great is mobile. It would make voice and video apps so much better if users who trust each other could directly connect without the latency adding rendezvous host. It would also need some sort of authenticated uPnP like protocol for telling the carrier when to allow traffic through their firewall though. I wouldn’t want random hosts to be able to waste my precious battery and bandwidth by sending unwanted traffic for my phone to process and discard.