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

41–50 of 60 posts

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

#41

Post by iso1631 »

pantalaimon wrote: post #19
emptybottle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could be argued that the flaws in IPv6 are significant enough to result in an scenario where IPv4 is never actually retired and therefore IPv6 is never fully adopted. Its been decades, but still IPv6 is deployed (at best) as a parallel network that effectively doubles management/maintenance overhead. And at worst sites just add an IPv6 reverse proxy.

What do you think are the biggest flaws in IPv6?

Dual Stack. Means twice the work for barely any benefit.

I should be able to have a router with a ipv4 network and multiple ipv6 networks without losing access to the ip4 network. The ip6 network should be reachable via port natting on the ip4 IP

I.E I have three networks on my router, two on ipv6

1000:2000:3000:4001::1/64

1000:2000:3000:4002::1/64

192.168.0.1/24

the ipv6 only server on

1000:2000:3000:4001::10

should cope with sending a packet to

1000:2000:3000:4002::10

By routing it via the router

It should also transparently convert a target of 192.168.0.3 to ::ffff:c0a8:3 and send via the gateay.

The router should then convert it to 192.168.0.3, with a source of 192.168.0.1, and maintaining a NAT state so return traffic goes back to 1000:2000:3000:4001::10

If there's a service that 1000:2000:3000:4001::10 needs to expose, the router can do a dst-nat on say 192.168.0.1 port 80 and forward to 1000:2000:3000:4001::10 port 80

That way you can comfortably deploy ipv6 wherever possible and not have to worry about ipv4 other than at the router, where you just have the ipv4 subnet

Likewise my ipv6 network can reach 209.216.230.240 by running ipv6 across my network until it comes to a device with an ipv4 address, where it gets natted. Just like it runs across my private rfc19xx ipv4 range before srcnatting at the edge of my network.

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

#42

Post by lostapathy »

feldrim wrote: post #27
pantalaimon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think are the biggest flaws in IPv6?

I believe that the comment is not a personal opinion but a reflection of the acceptance rate of IPv6. If most of the web still uses IPv4 and not using IPv6 is still defended with the "people against new things" arguments, it shows that there is at least one thing that prevents people from using it. Considering that the new kid on the block is 26 years old, I think, there is more than one.

Any new protocol is going to have adoption costs. The "issue" with ipv6 is that for a lot of people/organizations, the tolerable cost of adoption is still pretty much zero. Adding yet another protocol to the mix would not make that better.

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

#43

Post by lostapathy »

iso1631 wrote: post #38
xmzx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your example is mostly a non-issue if you have working DNS. Which ... I know is a big assumption in a lot of networks, especially small to medium sized businesses, it seems. I don't know why DNS is such an issue for so many companies, but I can't help but think people would be more positive about ipv6 if we could get internal DNS solved first.

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

#44

Post by zeroimpl »

pantalaimon wrote: post #19
emptybottle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could be argued that the flaws in IPv6 are significant enough to result in an scenario where IPv4 is never actually retired and therefore IPv6 is never fully adopted. Its been decades, but still IPv6 is deployed (at best) as a parallel network that effectively doubles management/maintenance overhead. And at worst sites just add an IPv6 reverse proxy.

What do you think are the biggest flaws in IPv6?

I tried turning on IPv6 on my VPS server running Docker. Not knowing much about IPv6, I naively assumed it’d just work. Evidently not, and you either need to run a NAT service or your containers become publicly routable, both having major caveats that I didn’t want to deal with.

The notion that every endpoint has a globally unique address, with prefixes coming down from some upstream provider is just fundamentally incompatible with how IPv4 networks are designed today.

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

#45

Post by jcalvinowens »

iso1631 wrote: post #41
pantalaimon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think are the biggest flaws in IPv6?

Dual Stack. Means twice the work for barely any benefit. I should be able to have a router with a ipv4 network and multiple ipv6 networks without losing access to the ip4 network. The ip6 network should be reachable via port natting on the ip4 IP I.E I have three networks on my router, two on ipv6 1000:2000:3000:4001::1/64 1000:2000:3000:4002::1/64 192.168.0.1/24 the ipv6 only server on 1000:2000:3000:4001::10 should…

Poor interoperability with NAT is a feature, not a bug, IMHO. NAT rarely makes sense in IPv6. In your scenario, why wouldn't you just set up your router so you can directly address the V6 subnets over V6 to begin with?

IPv6 works best when all addresses are globally routable (whether firewalled off or not). We're all so used to RFC1918 that we forget it was an ugly kludge that fundamentally broke how the internet was meant to work. IPv6 is the fix for that breakage: the address of every individual device can actually mean the same thing everywhere on the internet, as it was meant to be. L3 routing can be stateless again.

The primary intent of IPv6 is to replace IPv4, not coexist with it. Coexistence is transitory and not worth optimizing for over the future of the internet when V4 is dead.

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

#46

Post by iso1631 »

jcalvinowens wrote: post #45
iso1631 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dual Stack. Means twice the work for barely any benefit. I should be able to have a router with a ipv4 network and multiple ipv6 networks without losing access to the ip4 network. The ip6 network should be reachable via port natting on the ip4 IP I.E I have three networks on my router, two on ipv6 1000:2000:3000:4001::1/64 1000:2000:3000:4002::1/64 192.168.0.1/24 the ipv6 only server on 1000:2000:3000:4001::10 should…

Poor interoperability with NAT is a feature, not a bug, IMHO. NAT rarely makes sense in IPv6. In your scenario, why wouldn't you just set up your router so you can directly address the V6 subnets over V6 to begin with? IPv6 works best when all addresses are globally routable (whether firewalled off or not). We're all so used to RFC1918 that we forget it was an ugly kludge that fundamentally broke how the internet was…

V6-V6 sure, that doesn't need nat. It's the V6->V4. NAT is preferably to dual stack. I don't want to double my administration efforts by maintaining a v4 and a v6 network on every machine and every router, which appears to be best practice. Let me deploy v6, and only v6, but still interoperate with v4 until everyone has migrated.

As for nat being a cludge, lets assume I have a simple small office network with two independent ISPs. Normally I want to send half my users out of ISP1 and half out of ISP2.

If ISP2 fails, I want to send them all out of ISP1, OK there's less bandwidth to go round, but better than having no bandwidth for half my users.

How do I do that with ipv6 without natting (assuming I'm not large enough to be running my own AS and peering with two different providers)

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

#47

Post by codatory »

iso1631 wrote: post #46
jcalvinowens wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor interoperability with NAT is a feature, not a bug, IMHO. NAT rarely makes sense in IPv6. In your scenario, why wouldn't you just set up your router so you can directly address the V6 subnets over V6 to begin with? IPv6 works best when all addresses are globally routable (whether firewalled off or not). We're all so used to RFC1918 that we forget it was an ugly kludge that fundamentally broke how the internet was…

V6-V6 sure, that doesn't need nat. It's the V6->V4. NAT is preferably to dual stack. I don't want to double my administration efforts by maintaining a v4 and a v6 network on every machine and every router, which appears to be best practice. Let me deploy v6, and only v6, but still interoperate with v4 until everyone has migrated. As for nat being a cludge, lets assume I have a simple small office network with two ind…

What I've been told is both ISP's v6 prefix should be advertised with different priorities to the clients, which also yields the net bonus that applications that are stateless (UDP) or use MP-TCP can seamlessly fail over or adapt to network conditions without the intervention of another network device.

I don't have easy access to multiple V6-PD enabled providers to test this theory, and as someone with quite the neck beard I really don't know how I feel about ceeding this level of control to endpoints. But also, I'm not sure I hate it either.

Oh and don't forget link-local and a ula prefix for your local addressing requirements for pinters and whatnot that shouldn't be using dynamic discovery.

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

#48

Post by emptybottle »

zokier wrote: post #21
emptybottle wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could be argued that the flaws in IPv6 are significant enough to result in an scenario where IPv4 is never actually retired and therefore IPv6 is never fully adopted. Its been decades, but still IPv6 is deployed (at best) as a parallel network that effectively doubles management/maintenance overhead. And at worst sites just add an IPv6 reverse proxy.

We are way past the critical mass for IPv6, it has enough momentum to become predominant "internet" in the next decade or so. Thinking that it won't happen is pretty ludicrous at this point

My concern is that v4 may never be decommissioned. Sure, v6 could become predominant, but fundamentally there being two separate protocols running in parallel is a failed migration.

On a much smaller scale it's analogous to migrating from mariadb to postgres, but the migration takes 50 years and you end up realistically maintaining both.

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

#49

Post by soneil »

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?

The only difference I see between EnIP and NAT is that both ends have to understand it instead of one end. It's almost exactly NAT but with an extension to store the private-side IP in a header so the router doesn't have to track state.

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

#50

Post by emptybottle »

lostapathy wrote: post #42
feldrim wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the comment is not a personal opinion but a reflection of the acceptance rate of IPv6. If most of the web still uses IPv4 and not using IPv6 is still defended with the "people against new things" arguments, it shows that there is at least one thing that prevents people from using it. Considering that the new kid on the block is 26 years old, I think, there is more than one.

Any new protocol is going to have adoption costs. The "issue" with ipv6 is that for a lot of people/organizations, the tolerable cost of adoption is still pretty much zero. Adding yet another protocol to the mix would not make that better.

You are right, v6 is mostly a new protocol. But it's been been advertised as an updated version. It just contains essentially 100% breaking changes.
Post reply on HN