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

IPv6 Watch

ipv6.watch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: IPv6 Watch

#81

Post by mgdlbp »

laumars wrote: post #62
quantico wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to Hacker News' lack of support for IPv6, however it is nice to see that ipv6.watch does support it. To elaborate: I feel that the irony comes from an apparent desire by this website's users towards supporting IPv6, as evidenced by a few articles about the topic on the first page today; Raising awareness of IPv6 support on a site that does not.

In other news, Google “recommends” Duck Duck Go and Bing… if you happen to type them into the Google search engine as a search term. /s Point being, the items on HNs front page are user aggregated content and has naff all to do with HN itself.

Funnily enough, Yandex has links at the bottom of its results pages to the same query in Bing and Google.

Re: IPv6 Watch

#82

Post by capableweb »

post-it wrote: post #65
oofabz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 is faster and more reliable because the user can connect to your site natively instead of going through NAT and CGNAT.

The only NAT between most users and most sites are the users' modem/router combos, and those are pretty fast and reliable.

> users' modem/router combos, and those are pretty fast and reliable

What? No, most of the infrastructure you see deployed at users home is trash. Majority of people don't buy their own network gear to replace the ISP gear they receive when signing up and ISP skimps on the costs of hardware for customers.

Re: IPv6 Watch

#83

Post by MayeulC »

p1mrx wrote: post #69
MayeulC wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site becomes reachable to IPv6-only hosts. Some servers can work reliably with only IPv6, for instance, until you need to contact IPv4-only servers. I would like my mail server to be IPv6-only, but that's not currently possible, for instance. I wonder how many customers can realistically hide behind a single IPv4 (CGNAT), given that there are 65535 TCP/UDP ports.

> I wonder how many customers can realistically hide behind a single IPv4 (CGNAT), given that there are 65535 TCP/UDP ports. In theory, one IPv4 address can maintain 65535 connections with every HTTPS server (TCP port 443) on the Internet simultaneously. The main cause of port depletion would be when lots of users connect to the same server. A reasonable number is 1000 users with 64 ports each, but you could probably…

Ah, right, the mapping can be per server IP, thanks for pointing this out.

If Facebook started throwing persistent connections left and right, it imagine it could cause a problem, but short of that, it should be fine.

Re: IPv6 Watch

#84

Post by maccolgan »

TekMol wrote: post #23

I will start thinking about supporting IPv6 when Docker supports it out of the box. Hopefully, then I can test an individual application by running it in a container with "docker run -p [::1]:80:80 ...". I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of fiddling with the docker demon and setting up a custom network.

It's not even complicated at this point, just delegate an prefix in daemon.json and it'll all work automatically, even better if you use compose.

Re: IPv6 Watch

#85

Post by maccolgan »

whoknowswhat11 wrote: post #20
duskwuff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does an IPv4-only host send a packet to an IPv6-only host?

They could have at least let ipv6 only folks talk to ipv4 more easily. Something like 464XLAT maybe built in out the gate more? You go ipv6 until next hop is IPv4. If you are in IPv4 mapped address space translate to IPv4 there and continue.

Do you mean Teredo?

Re: IPv6 Watch

#86

Post by maccolgan »

peanut-walrus wrote: post #79
peanut-walrus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is actually true though? > It simplifies aspects of address configuration I assume this is referring to SLAAC? SLAAC is...fine. Most managed networks will want the extra control offered by DHCP though and DHCPv6 is currently in a much much worse state than DHCPv4. Also a single interface having at least 2, usually 3 or more (link-local, autogenerated, privacy) v6 addresses on the network is definitely no…

To add to this, what I would like to see in IPv6 personally: 1) Ability to get a personal prefix as a private individual or a small company (not a LIR or LIR-sponsored) 2) Ability to use that prefix with any ISP I choose - similar to how a consumer can migrate their cellphone number to a different provider. 3) RFC 6275 actually implemented There are other bits and pieces, but I believe if these with 3 things were don…

1&2 is easy to do with PI addresses, but you are making the broad assumption that ISPs are moral enough to not nickle and dime you

Re: IPv6 Watch

#87

Post by oofabz »

hansel_der wrote: post #70
post-it wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only NAT between most users and most sites are the users' modem/router combos, and those are pretty fast and reliable.

tend to agree, but can't help questioning how prevalent CGNAT really is?

CGNAT is standard on mobile connections, it's more common than getting your own IPv4 address. Over the last few years, it's becoming increasingly common for residential connections, because ISPs can no longer get additional IPs for free from their regional numbering registry.

It's now cheaper for ISPs to deploy CGNAT than to purchase new IP blocks. Since IPv4 is provided for legacy compatibility, performance is not a priority.

Re: IPv6 Watch

#88

Post by tibbon »

I don’t think our site supports IPv6 yet fully.

If I were to go to my CTO tomorrow and try to pitch them that this is a priority, what would I tell them? How do I justify this work? Marginally cheaper addresses don’t impact our scale compared to the work cost involved. We are big enough to be mentioned front page NYT at least once a month, but this just doesn’t seem to matter (yet) for us

Re: IPv6 Watch

#89

Post by TekMol »

nicolaslem wrote: post #77
TekMol wrote: post #23

I will start thinking about supporting IPv6 when Docker supports it out of the box. Hopefully, then I can test an individual application by running it in a container with "docker run -p [::1]:80:80 ...". I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of fiddling with the docker demon and setting up a custom network.

I host Internet facing docker containers that support IPv6 with '--net=host'. For those who don't know, this allows to run a container with exactly the same characteristics as a normal process network wise.

Yes, that works.

I am not comfortable giving a container full control over the host network though. I have not looked into the security implications of it but I would expect it is dangerous for the host.

Re: IPv6 Watch

#90

Post by grishka »

fintler wrote: post #15

A basic understanding of what an IPv6 world will look like really didn't click for me until I read the IPv6 Address Planning book by Tom Coffeen. Before that, I really just saw it as IPv4 with longer addresses. Once you dig into the details, you come to the realization that it's a nearly complete reinvention of IPv4. Network planning looks quite different (especially when it comes to subnets) when you plan them with…

I understand ISPs giving people subnets because there's an expectation that you'll be using a router. Each of your devices will have a public IPv6 address, obviating the need for NATs and CGNATs. That's neat, and that enables you to do all sorts of things like reliable p2p communication and servers.

But what doesn't make much sense for me is when you're given a subnet many IPv4 address spaces worth addresses on a single network interface on something like a server. Sure you could use that for a VPN, and I did set one up like that, but are there any more use cases? Surely there must be a good explanation why everyone is doing that?

Post reply on HN