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

Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

seam.cs.umd.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#31

Post by tialaramex »

jcranmer wrote: post #26
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #13

i have a question, when iphone was introduced in 2007, 3G came AFTER that, then 4g and now 5g. why didn't the mobile revolution help move ipv6 adoption? i mean at the time, why wasn't 3G built on ipv6 instead of basing on ipv4? couldn't apple have forced websites to play nice with ipv6 to get more users from iphone crowd? android would have followed suit? i get the whole legacy thing but since transitioning to lets s…

Mobile is driving IPv6 adoption. Look at Google's IPv6 usage rate over time ( https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html ), and you'll notice there's a clear cyclical nature in IPv6 usage, with IPv6 peaking in weekends and troughing in weekdays (except in late December). And the COVID lockdown suddenly causes the weekday troughs to jump up 1.5 percentage points.

Not just mobile, home users too. And although some of us wanted IPv6 just like the Internet itself the vast majority of people just got it because it seemed like that's what everybody had. Which is fine.

When Sarah's mom's ISP rolls out IPv6 (or maybe when she gets new CPE because she upgraded service, moved home, or it just eventually died), her devices get IPv6, but she doesn't care, Facebook still works (it might be slightly faster, but not noticeably) and Sarah's mom doesn't know what the Internet Protocol Version Six is except that it sounds like something from a Star Trek convention.

Sarah's employer is Big Corp. When Big Corp's ISP rolls out IPv6, Big Corp IT agree that since not everybody went on the IPv6 training course yet, they should explicitly disable IPv6 to avoid unspecified "problems". Everything still works as before and Big Corp's IT department are cheerfully running stuff that actually matters in the Cloud, so what do they need more addresses for anyway? Maybe in 2025 there will be a budgetary requirement for IPv6 at Big Corp. Or maybe not. Perhaps the best chance for Big Corp to get IPv6 is if IT screws up and mistakenly doesn't disable it, then they find that later doing so makes things worse.

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#32

Post by throw0101a »

yakattak wrote: post #10

Can someone explain to me how about a decade ago we were going to run out of IPv4 addresses in a matter of months and we needed to switch to IPv6 or else , but now we’re still using it fine?

> but now we’re still using it fine?

You're saying CGNAT is fine?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

That having to NAT on your home Linksys/Asus and then getting NATed again by your ISP is fine? If you want to allow a connection to your PC or gaming system, how do you hole punch a double-NAT exactly?

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#33

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

ksec wrote: post #25
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #13

i have a question, when iphone was introduced in 2007, 3G came AFTER that, then 4g and now 5g. why didn't the mobile revolution help move ipv6 adoption? i mean at the time, why wasn't 3G built on ipv6 instead of basing on ipv4? couldn't apple have forced websites to play nice with ipv6 to get more users from iphone crowd? android would have followed suit? i get the whole legacy thing but since transitioning to lets s…

>3G came AFTER that, Oh my. 3G predate iPhone by a lot. There were 3G Smartphones ( Symbian ) or 3G Mobile phones years before iPhone. The first 3G network if I remember correctly "launched" before year 2000 in Japan. ( That is why some analyst suggest that iPhone was bringing the Japanese Internet to the world with touch screen. ) The 3G Spec ( Now known as 3GPP ) predate 2000. 4G was the first system moving from ci…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G

In India, on 11 December 2008, the first 3G mobile and internet services were launched by a state-owned company, Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Limited (MTNL),

maybe in japan but i saw it AFTER the iphone came out and that is what i wrote.

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#34

Post by xmzx »

d33 wrote: post #4

Curious why this hasn't taken off, it seems to make so much more sense to me. Let IPv4 addresses run out. Allow parties to trade them. Slowly migrate from "one IP per box" to "one IP per net" with what looks like NAT, but can easily be traversed if you understand the extension. And once we start running out of IPs again, rinse and repeat. What am I misunderstanding / oversimplifying?

Literally everything about IPv6 is easier and better. IPv4 is already much slower than IPv6, now you're adding another layer of complexity on top of it? That doesn't sound too good. IPv6 is and has been ready to go forever now.

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#36

Post by cesarb »

tialaramex wrote: post #28
d33 wrote: post #4

Curious why this hasn't taken off, it seems to make so much more sense to me. Let IPv4 addresses run out. Allow parties to trade them. Slowly migrate from "one IP per box" to "one IP per net" with what looks like NAT, but can easily be traversed if you understand the extension. And once we start running out of IPs again, rinse and repeat. What am I misunderstanding / oversimplifying?

It's fun with all these proposals that so many people think they make sense, presumably including their authors. This one has a bunch of grave problems. 1. Notice that the address space shortage is not in fact alleviated although it is shy about admitting that. Nobody who doesn't have addresses gets addresses from this scheme. Instead, everybody who already has addresses gets even more of the new addresses and the au…

> My favourites are the ones which don't realise addresses are just bits and propose we can fix everything by writing bigger numbers like 300.400.500.600 ...

My favorite was one which "realized" that addresses are just bits in the physical wire and proposed to use intermediate values for these bits (that is, using more than two voltages). I wish I had bookmarked that one, it was truly baffling. It was wrong on so many levels that it was hard to know where to start.

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#37

Post by ArchOversight »

mhandley wrote: post #20

I wrote a proposal back in 1999 or so exploring IPv4-in-IPv4 as an alternative to IPv6. You would have used the outer IP header to traverse the internet backbone, and the inner IP header locally. It completely avoided the need to change any inter-domain infrastructure and, with some DNS-based gatewaying where the gateway to the Interent added/removed the outer IP header, could even be incrementally deployed to unmodi…

ISP's can already do that... by repackaging IPv4 traffic into IPv6 (when I worked at an ISP this was an experiment that was being done to test the viability to reduce IPv4 address requirements across the backbone, but you could also tunnel it over IPv4 I guess) so that the traffic traverses their entire network inside an IPv6 tunnel, and would get translated back to IPv4 on the edge.

As a user you lose some visibility in terms of what routers your packet traverses, but the same can be said about MPLS tunnels/IPSec tunnels where your packet magically seems to have gone just 1 hop instead of the 10 it actually took.

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#38

Post by iso1631 »

xmzx wrote: post #34
d33 wrote: post #4

Curious why this hasn't taken off, it seems to make so much more sense to me. Let IPv4 addresses run out. Allow parties to trade them. Slowly migrate from "one IP per box" to "one IP per net" with what looks like NAT, but can easily be traversed if you understand the extension. And once we start running out of IPs again, rinse and repeat. What am I misunderstanding / oversimplifying?

Literally everything about IPv6 is easier and better. IPv4 is already much slower than IPv6, now you're adding another layer of complexity on top of it? That doesn't sound too good. IPv6 is and has been ready to go forever now.

> Literally everything about IPv6 is easier and better

That's not true, at a simple level typing "ping 10.34.56.22" is far easier than "ping df99:eff2:245a:46vv:2cmm:dfaa:41ff:2211"

The benefits of ipv6 may outweigh ipv4, but by claiming "everything is easier and better" is disingenuous and a reason so many still refuse to move.

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#39

Post by toast0 »

teddyh wrote: post #6

What is the rational reason, if any, for bringing up things like these? The time to have this discussion would have been in like 1993 or so. Now, IPv6 is what we have, and the standards are what they are, flaws and all. The only reason I can think of is psychological: People don’t want to learn new things, so they find reasons to dislike the new thing to be able to pretend they don’t need to learn it.

2012 wasn't a bad time to discuss alternate options. Now is maybe a little late, but that's arguable.

There's a whole generation of people and experience that wasn't able to enter the discussions in 1993 and is available now. Maybe new eyes or experienced eyes would have a better solution.

The problem is clearer now than then. IPv6 makes many changes to address many problems, but maybe only address space is a real problem, because only address space seems to be motivating people to join IPv6.

Of course, the downside is not a lot of people want to be on three parallel networks, it's a lot of work. But perhaps, if that third network were more desirable and easier to implement, it could get larger coverage in a shorter amount of time than IPv6. Sort of like how TLS 1.1 never had more users than TLS 1.0, but TLS 1.2 overtook them both.

You would need real consensus and commitment from lastmile ISPs, backbone ISPs, networking vendors, OS vendors, CPE vendors, mobile networks, content providers, etc, though and that's tough. The consensus on IPv6 seems to be clearly, we'll do it eventually, when we really have to (which for some networks was 2012, and some networks is now, and some networks seems to be never)

Re: Enhanced IP: IPv4 with 64 Bit Addresses (2012) [pdf]

#40

Post by iso1631 »

akvadrako wrote: post #18
yakattak wrote: post #10

Can someone explain to me how about a decade ago we were going to run out of IPv4 addresses in a matter of months and we needed to switch to IPv6 or else , but now we’re still using it fine?

The price per IP used to be almost nothing, now it's about $5/month and will keep going up; you can see these costs clearly with inexpensive hosting providers like Hetzner. As a result many home and mobile users only get personal IPv6 addresses with IPv4 connections being tunneled over shared addresses.

Not sure who's charging you $5 a month, but $3.70 will get you a VM and an IP, and extra IPs are $1.60 a month on this site

https://www.cheapvps.co.uk/plans-openvz.php

Post reply on HN