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

More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 237 posts

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#151

Post by walton_simons »

georgyo wrote: post #81
iknowstuff wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What complexity? Devices being autoconfigurable without DHCP is less complex. Having no NAT is less complex. Having a public IP is less complex. You just got used to the complexity of IPv4. Why the hell would you block IPv6. You ARE stuck in your ways. OS vendors consider it necessary on LAN for various functionality.

I really think IPv6 is the future but, Devices configuring without DHCP as a network administrator is really hard. There is no longer a single method to be given an IP6 address, and with the auto methods, there is no log either. Only some clients will do dhcpv6 which means you often have two different auto configuring services on a network. Similarly, to see devices on a network I now have to use neighborhood discove…

Honestly it's reassuring to read this. I do want to understand IPv6 better and I think I am slowly getting to grips with how it all fits together, but the details regularly make me feel as though I need to throw out a lot of what I think I know about networking, and rebuild my entire mental model from the ground up.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#152

Post by Dagger2 »

dijit wrote: post #130
jiggawatts wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said there wouldn't be ACLs or firewalls in an IPv6 network. IPv4 NAT provides security as a side effect . You don't need NAT for security. PS: This is the #1 most common argument trotted out against IPv6, and it is blatantly false.

NAT doesn't do much if anything for security at all, as soon as there's an outbound connection the internet has a port mapping back to your host. https://www.f5.com/services/resources/white-papers/the-myth-... .

You don't even need an outbound connection. If your router receives a packet with a dest IP set to one of your LAN machines, it'll be routed to that LAN machine. NAT does nothing to stop that, and thus does nothing for (this aspect of) security.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#153

Post by IntelMiner »

jiggawatts wrote: post #122
anonymfus wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was not that the time of massive migration from IPX/SPX?

I began my IT career in 1999 and I saw exactly one network that still had significant amounts of IPX usage, but it was already primarily IPv4. If any vendor had tried to sell a network product in 2001 that didn't do IPv4, they would have been laughed out of the room. Nobody is laughing in the faces of vendors in 2020 for selling products that can't do IPv6 properly... or at all. Nobody will be laughing in 2021. Or 20…

One of the last pieces of software I remember using IPX exclusively was Westwood Studios "Red Alert 2" released in 2000, along with its expansion pack released in 2001

I mainly remember as Vista dropped IPX support, rendering those games unplayable on LAN's for years until someone developed a UDP patch instead

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#154

Post by amluto »

yyyk wrote: post #150
amluto wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

16 million is way too few because of collisions and the birthday paradox. Even with a tiny corporate network, you are likely to connect to other companies’ networks, and, with private addresses, no one coordinates allocations. Collisions are quite likely. Also, the major players probably have more than 16 million devices, especially if you could VMs.

Every sane large internal network is segmented. I doubt all the "more than 16 million devices" need to talk to every other device. The IPv4 limit is an annoyance, but not a big one for the typical internal networks.

When my internal network connects, via any non-NATed means, to a vendor’s internal network, there is a chance that my addresses conflict with theirs. If the vendors have even a few tens of clients, this risk is quite high.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#155

Post by ac29 »

throw0101a wrote: post #117
walton_simons wrote: post #48

My ISP supports IPv6, and while I can understand why a large organisation would want to use it (especially given the increasing cost and scarcity of IPv4 blocks), I'm still yet to be persuaded of its benefits for home users. I admit that I only have a very cursory understanding of how it works, and perhaps I'm just stuck in my ways, but the scale and complexity seems so extreme compared to IPv4, with no compensating…

> I'm still yet to be persuaded of its benefits for home users. According to Apple, IPv6 is 1.4 times faster than IPv4 (latency wise AFAICT): * https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-tells-app-devs-to-use-ip... This is supposedly "due to reduced NAT usage and improved routing."

In that article, Apple says the connection setup is 1.4x faster, not that there is a 40% improvement in throughput or latency.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#156

Post by ac29 »

rmrfstar wrote: post #34
jakeogh wrote: post #4

It's a perquisite for tagging individuals. IPv4 not having enough addresses is a good thing. With IPv6 identification (and therefore control) can be down to the person globally, but IPv4 forces NAT's. The inability to label all the things is a feature. NAT's are borders; they prevent fine grained censorship without larger consequences. $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i ipv6 # CONFIG_IPV6 is not set

It feels like Google has a dog in this fight. Why can't Android devices connect to ipv4-only networks?

Of course they can, the majority of networks are IPv4 only.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#157

Post by Arnt »

Dagger2 wrote: post #144
Arnt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a /64 really an end customer? How common is that? Both of my ISPs hand out new ISPs hand out new /64 prefixes every so often. One does it every half-hour, the other is comparable but I don't remember. I think they do it to encourage business customers to get more expensive connections, but the effect on my connections is that each device's IP address changes every few minutes, within the ISP's /32, and doesn't rep…

/64 is a subnet . End customers get /56 to /48 so that they can run multiple subnets. It is, unfortunately, more common than it should be for ISPs to not even give the minimum of that range though. Changing your prefix every half an hour would be... unusual, at least, although again I wouldn't put it past some ISPs to do that (possibly unintentionally)... but sounds like your prefix might be changing every time you d…

It's a subnet, yes. GP declared it to be approximately the same as an end customer.

How do you know that the ISP replacing it often is "unusual, to say the least"? Or is that something you know?

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#158

Post by Dagger2 »

Arnt wrote: post #157
Dagger2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/64 is a subnet . End customers get /56 to /48 so that they can run multiple subnets. It is, unfortunately, more common than it should be for ISPs to not even give the minimum of that range though. Changing your prefix every half an hour would be... unusual, at least, although again I wouldn't put it past some ISPs to do that (possibly unintentionally)... but sounds like your prefix might be changing every time you d…

It's a subnet, yes. GP declared it to be approximately the same as an end customer. How do you know that the ISP replacing it often is "unusual, to say the least"? Or is that something you know?

There's a fair few ISPs changing the prefix every day, but this is the first I've heard of anyone changing it every half an hour. If it was common I would've heard a lot of complaining about it by now.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#159

Post by ghshephard »

yyyk wrote: post #146
Dagger2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an internal network if it's inside your networking perimeter. The type of addresses you use on it are irrelevant to that. Most enterprise networks need to be routed to other networks -- either other networks inside the enterprise, networks inside other enterprises or the internet. To make that work sanely all of the networks involved need to use address ranges that don't overlap. RFC1918 is pretty much the defin…

It's fine for IPv6 engineers to want to make everything directly routable, but in IPv4 the difference still matters, and therefore that's the scenario we need to compare against. The IPv6 enterprise argument is 'You might one day have to renumber some devices because some other enterprise might have set up overlapping addresses, therefore you definitely have to renumber everything now, and oh, every time the ISP deci…

Or you could just say screw it, and use RFC4193, and then all you need to ever worry about is prefix remapping at a few key touch points. Particularly if you don't care about external routing in the first place.

Re: More than 1/3 of all access to Google is now over IPv6

#160

Post by avianlyric »

yyyk wrote: post #146
Dagger2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an internal network if it's inside your networking perimeter. The type of addresses you use on it are irrelevant to that. Most enterprise networks need to be routed to other networks -- either other networks inside the enterprise, networks inside other enterprises or the internet. To make that work sanely all of the networks involved need to use address ranges that don't overlap. RFC1918 is pretty much the defin…

It's fine for IPv6 engineers to want to make everything directly routable, but in IPv4 the difference still matters, and therefore that's the scenario we need to compare against. The IPv6 enterprise argument is 'You might one day have to renumber some devices because some other enterprise might have set up overlapping addresses, therefore you definitely have to renumber everything now, and oh, every time the ISP deci…

I’m confused why would this happen?

> The IPv6 enterprise argument is 'You might one day have to renumber some devices because some other enterprise might have set up overlapping addresses, therefore you definitely have to renumber everything now, and oh, every time the ISP decides they don't like you, because private addresses are icky'. Obviously that's a hard sell.

If you’re an enterprise you would just get your own IPv6 block assignment. It’s not like they’re expensive or hard to get hold of.

Companies already buy and manage domains, this is no different. Using a domain you don’t own is just plain stupid, same applies to IPv6 ranges.

Post reply on HN