heh, my home Google Fiber/Webpass still doesn't have IPv6
United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
111–120 of 164 posts
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
No different than NAT and forwarding a port which people have been doing for decades. Hell if you have a firewall exploit then exposing stuff to the internet doesn't matter.
It's very different because NAT blocks by default. You either need to manually set up a forwarded port or the app needs to use UPNP.
I'd not be too confident about that, this is a thing that keeps happening:
https://www.anvilsecure.com/blog/dhcp-games-with-smart-route...
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#113That's great to hear, now if only Google's cloud offerings were also a bit more IPv6 friendly. for example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59856468/does-gcp-allow-...
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#114maybe a silly question - if the internet was 100% ipv6, could we do away with NATs?
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#115What do they mean by latency -10ms?
That's latency impact (vs v4) not just latency. -10 would mean IPv6 connections typically had better latency than IPv4 connections. This was more an concern during the early days of IPv6 deployment.
Exactly, but we are not in the early days anymore. So how is, in today's world, v6 "10ms faster" than v4? ISPs didn't magically create v6-only exchanges that happen to be in a more direct path to Google.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very different because NAT blocks by default. You either need to manually set up a forwarded port or the app needs to use UPNP.
Every consumer router/firewall drops incoming packets by default, why would this be different for ipv6?
> Every consumer router/firewall drops incoming packets by default, why would this be different for ipv6?
Sadly, this is very far from the truth. Most routers do not filter IPv6 by default, mainly because IPv6's design assumes a per-device firewall. This means that literally you need to ensure that every device supports a firewall or otherwise operates in such a way that it is safe for public access.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything old and stable in developer circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of developers only seem comfortable with technology invented in the past 18-24 months, regardless of how untested and unstable it is. “What's this? It was written 2 years ago? It must be old and useless. I’m going to require my app to use the latest version and I don’t care…
Sure, that's annoying too, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic at hand. IPv6 isn't some shiny new tech, the original RFC just turned 26. It's also not just a superficial re-write of some existing tool, it fixes a real problem which clearly needs to be addressed (no pun intended).
I agree my response isn’t directly relevant, I’m just tired of seeing the same tropes over and over again about how Ops people’s only motivation is to drag their feet on everything just because they’re old and out of date. They actually have good reasons for having processes that appear to slow things down, for good reason.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#118About 5 years ago, I asked the owner of my fixed wireless ISP if he was planning to support IPv6 and I received a 500 word email rant about the uselessness of v6. I haven't asked again. (I still get a 0/10 score at https://test-ipv6.com/ )
There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything new in sysadmin/netadmin circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of technologists only seem comfortable with the technology that was available when they were 18-24, regardless of how old they get. "What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?"
As a sysadmin, I'd be fine if the stuff on top supported ipv6. E.g., I'm not aware of support for ipv6 in Kubernetes.
In anticipation, where can I catch up on ipv6 routing? Does the number of route entries explode?
I do need a "business reason" to adopt it, since the Center for Internet Security benchmark dings your system if it is turned on.
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not a pain for a LAN. Case in point: navigating to your router’s web interface. Very easy to do with IPv4 to do, a pain with IPv6. As my home router only supports stateless auto configuration, it’s an additional friction point to have stable addresses. Oh, and since the /56 is assigned by my ISP, it sometimes changes, so I can’t just rely on addresses being stable. I’m not saying that IPv6 is necessarily b…
Link-local addresses are what you want, and “fixed” endings or whatever they’re called - so the router is always ::1 for example. Or just have IPv4 on the LAN.
Aren’t link-local only applicable to a single switch, rather than a more involved LAN with several subnets and routers and whatnot?
Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
>to anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet When you put it like that, it sounds kind of scary.
Only when you're dependent on NAT for security. NAT isn't intended to be a security tool, and is pretty bad at mitigating against attacks that aren't just "log into this device directly." As others have said, a robust firewall and some good access controls and you'll be fine.
"anything inside my home network from anywhere on the internet" doesn't sound much like robust access controls.
I wouldn't trust the horrible default passwords and lax security built into most devices for home use to be exposed directly to the Internet even with a firewall.