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

Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#131

Post by throw0101a »

lokedhs wrote: post #64
throw0101a wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In consumer routers, port forwarding is the exact same thing as an inbound traffic firewall. But when I turn on IPv6, what is the equivalent? Is my printer still protected from random inbound internet traffic? Copy-pasting from a previous discussion a little while ago: --- IPv4+NAT does not remove any more classes of problems than IPv6+firewall. Firewalls under IPv6 work exactly the same way as they do with IPv4. A…

Ping will still likely work. At least I can ping all my machines on my private network. However, I'm not able to ssh into it or anything else, because all traffic is dropped. It all depends on firewall configuration, but I think you may unnecessarily scare people by suggesting they're wide open just because ping works.

> ping

True. There are IPv6 port scanners available:

* http://www.ipv6scanner.com/cgi-bin/main.py

* https://www.subnetonline.com/pages/ipv6-network-tools/online...

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#132

Post by floatboth »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #38
curiousmindz wrote: post #3

It boggles my mind that IPv6 has such a slow roll out (it's been a thing since the early 2000s = twenty years ago). I would have thought that all the major tech companies supported it years ago on all their infrastructures, websites and apps. But there are still a lot of hold outs. What about IPv6 makes it such a chore to become widespread?

For me it's a few things that keep me from fully embracing it, & largely the problem is perception, as others have noted. 1. I'm a small-time self hoster. I need/want to control access to geographic locations and using IPv4 makes that pretty easy. Last time I checked, IPv6 was just so wrong that it's no good to use at all, and most IPv6 addresses were "unknown" in origin. 2. I'm used to the pseudo security that a NAT…

Don't touch ICMP, just don't.

http://shouldiblockicmp.com

https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2015/05/15/pmtud/

> sniffing (and snooping?)

Nothing is new here. ND is basically what ARP was. You don't disable ARP, do you?

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#134

Post by xxpor »

zokier wrote: post #128
xxpor wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone pointed out recently on NANOG the thing that probably killed a TON of IPv6 momentum was when they missed the deadline to get it included in Windows 95. Approximately no one was on the internet before then. (Yes yes you nerds were, but most people weren't)

Seems pretty far fetched to me that there would have ever been a chance to have IPv6 in Win9x. For comparison, afain FreeBSD was the forerunner with IPv6 support, and they got it in 2000. So I'd say they "missed the deadline" by 5+ years. It was probably around 2005 when we realistically had somewhat usable IPv6 support at base OS level.

I think the point was that it changed the whole demand curve. If the major consumer OS at the time had v6 support things like FreeBSD would have added it earlier.

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#135

Post by lillecarl »

yrro wrote: post #98
GrayShade wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All right, but assuming I have a dynamic DNS setup, how do I connect to one of the hosts in my network? I think most OSes do that privacy thing where they periodically randomize the suffix of their v6 address.

Your hosts will also use SLAAC to determine their permanent 'management' address, that's the one you use for connecting _to_ them. The 'management' address won't be used as the source addrrss packets originating _from_ the host unless the use of temporary/privacy addresses is disabled.

I need to remove IPv4 from my home network so that I can finally try and understand all mechanics around it properly.

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#136

Post by yrro »

lillecarl wrote: post #135
yrro wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hosts will also use SLAAC to determine their permanent 'management' address, that's the one you use for connecting _to_ them. The 'management' address won't be used as the source addrrss packets originating _from_ the host unless the use of temporary/privacy addresses is disabled.

I need to remove IPv4 from my home network so that I can finally try and understand all mechanics around it properly.

If you've not seen it before - check out https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ - it's a pretty neat basic IPv6 training course.

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#137

Post by lillecarl »

yrro wrote: post #136
lillecarl wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to remove IPv4 from my home network so that I can finally try and understand all mechanics around it properly.

If you've not seen it before - check out https://ipv6.he.net/certification/ - it's a pretty neat basic IPv6 training course.

As a matter of fact I'm an "enthusiast" already, but since I was using the HE tunnelbroker I was banned from several services, I'll have to get a VPS with a /56 or smth and wireguard over it. I'm a bit uncertain still about MTU so I'm thinking about just fragmenting stuff on 1500 and take the penalty hit (still can't get v6 in most of residential Sweden)

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#138

Post by supertrope »

jonathantf2 wrote: post #104
supertrope wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video chat. File transfers without a third party host. Cell phones almost always only offer a public address over v6. Internet gaming. VPNs without address conflicts. Not being banned from Wikipedia because someone else with the same CGNAT ISP got banned.

For the average consumer they don't notice a difference. Both my home and mobile ISPs have said they have no plans to offer IPv6 connectivity because it's not a requirement. Users don't care, and until a lot of them do ISPs won't do anything. People can still video chat, play games and use VPNs without v6.

It usually manifests as gamers asking about "strict NAT":

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/connect... https://kb.netgear.com/19844/Why-does-my-Xbox-say-NAT-is-set...

Part of why video chat quality sucks is because the RTP traffic has to be sent through a proxy to deal with NAT, doubling load on the Internet and increasing latency.

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#139

Post by [deleted] »

zokier wrote: post #28

One interesting observation about IPv6 I've made is that in Europe IPv6 and FTTx seem inversely correlated. For example Spain is one of the leaders in FTTx with 87% of homes covered, but have only 3% IPv6 adoption according to Google. Meanwhile Germany has one of the highest IPv6 adoptions in Europe, 52%, and one of the lowest FTTx coverages (16%). Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Iceland all have 90% FTTx and 10% IPv…

[deleted]

Re: Enabling IPv6 support for GitHub Pages

#140

Post by kazen44 »

azernik wrote: post #110
curiousmindz wrote: post #3

It boggles my mind that IPv6 has such a slow roll out (it's been a thing since the early 2000s = twenty years ago). I would have thought that all the major tech companies supported it years ago on all their infrastructures, websites and apps. But there are still a lot of hold outs. What about IPv6 makes it such a chore to become widespread?

Having done some work on implementation/migration: EVERYTHING needs to work. There's a hell of a lot of software (and, even worse, hardware) that encodes assumptions about IPv4. Everything from userspace asking specifically parsing only IPv4 addresses, to only listening for IPv4 incoming connections, to variables using the IPv4-only type, &c. And let's not even start on the L3 hardware acceleration built into so much…

this comments hit up a good point,

the lower in the OSI stack you go, the harder it is to initiate change.

There is still some (mostly industrial) hardware that has lackluster TCP/IP support at best (for instance, assuming the netmask is always a /24...).

migrating these networks to ipv6 is not possible, and doing 6to4 adds a crapton of complexity.

Post reply on HN