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

United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 164 posts

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#131

Post by Dagger2 »

_0w8t wrote: post #99
magila wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wish v6 just tried to fix things. The problem with v6 was that it also tried to do thing in a right way and broke too much compatibility. And then it turned out what was right in 1995 was no longer so for the last 10 years.

It mostly only broke the things it had to break. v4 isn't forwards compatible to longer address lengths, so the lack of compatibility isn't the fault of any aspect of v6's design.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#132

Post by Dagger2 »

kevincox wrote: post #127
herpderperator wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is likely that the CGNATs are slower when doing translation to IPv4 rather than just passing (with some filtering) IPv6. 10ms does seem like a lot though. Maybe a remote lookup? Or something to do with prefering IPv6 with a small delay (happy eyeballs related?)

They're rounding the numbers, so presumably it could be anywhere from 5ms to 15ms.

Some ISPs (I'm thinking of T-Mobile, but presumably they aren't the only one) centralize their CGNAT routers, whereas v6 traffic is handed off more locally since it doesn't need to be NATed. v4 traffic may need to travel further on those ISPs.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#133

Post by bombcar »

stingraycharles wrote: post #119
bombcar wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is - but if you have multiple subnets on your local lan you should have local DNS or similar (or know prefix:1::1 is the router, etc).

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#134

Post by Dagger2 »

keithnz wrote: post #55
dmitshur wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If https://apenwarr.ca/log/20110328 is still current, you’re not the only one.

actually, reading through his various different articles is quite interesting. This one probably is the best "The world in which IPv6 was a good design" https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810

Ugh, that article.

It's interesting but that doesn't make it right. v6 was a good design in our world.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#135

Post by Dagger2 »

syshum wrote: post #58
Latty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article was really very optimistic about NAT traversal, while being very pessimistic about solutions to avoiding memorising IP addresses, which I think says something about their perspective going in. NAT is a nightmare that has directly lead to the crappy world of every "IoT" device relying on some remote service that can shut down any time, instead of just... connecting to your device. Also every game having c…

NAT not being designed for security does not negate the effect of security it does have. This goes to the 80/20 rule, IPv6 is a security nightmare if not deployed correctly, and I am surprised more home users have not gotten hit with this security time bomb

> NAT not being designed for security does not negate the effect of security it does have.

This is true... but the security impact of NAT is negative. It provides no security benefit, but it does confuse people about the security properties of their network, often providing a false sense of security.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#136

Post by jolux »

dahfizz wrote: post #98
jolux wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One developer's "old and stable" is another developer's "filled with vulnerabilities that nobody will ever find let alone bother to fix because everyone assumes it's old and stable." IPv6 has been a draft standard since 1998. Get a better argument.

A brand new project being written from scratch is way more likely to have bugs and likely to be abandoned as quickly as it started.

Not if it’s written by a good programmer.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#137

Post by Dagger2 »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

It was really not enough.

Remember that the IP layer exists for the purpose of routing and aggregation. Instead of tracking the current location of every machine on the planet, we bundle them into networks, and then bundle those networks together, and then bundle those bundles together too, and so on. There are maybe something like 10 billion devices that are either on the internet or that want to be on it, but with all the aggregation we're only tracking about a million routes at the global level.

This aggregation is critical for allowing the internet to scale to planetary size... but it also results in the vast majority of the addresses in the address space not being assigned to any end machine. In other words, having N in-use addresses needs a lot more than log_2(N) bits of address space.

There's likely to be less than 2^64 devices on the internet in the long run, so if we could assign one address to each of them and not have to worry about routing table sizes, then a 64-bit address space probably would be enough. But that doesn't describe IP addresses... it describes MAC addresses. And MAC addresses are in fact 64 bits long for new L2 protocols today.

Since L3 needs aggregation, which results in most L3 addresses being unused, it follows that we need more than 64 bits of L3 address space to handle the 2^64 devices that the 64-bit L2 addresses can handle.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#138

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

floatboth wrote: post #85
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike IPv6 that are much less shallow. Like, it's overcomplicated, not backwards compatible, doesn't actually solve the NAT problems for home users because of how ISPs work in the real world, etc.

> overcomplicated What exactly is complicated, using hexadecimal in addresses? The IP packet format itself is as simple as ever, and management things are done in a more elegant way (ND runs over ICMP rather than ARP being sort of there on the side not-in-IP-at-all). > not backwards compatible Massive service providers like T-Mobile US who use NAT64 as the only way to connect to v4 hosts anymore would disagree. > doe…

> What exactly is complicated, using hexadecimal in addresses?

That isn't the complicated part, but thanks for strawmanning that as hard as you possibly could.

> My ISP delegates me a /56. How else do ISPs work in the "real world"? I've heard of some giving out smaller networks but never something egregiously small.

It's got nothing to do with the size of the address space, it's that they insist on changing it constantly which invalidates firewall rules and any non-dynamic DNS.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#139

Post by Dagger2 »

saltharp wrote: post #92
throw0101a wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough? Consider the counter-factual: what if 64 bits ended up being not enough? Given all the effort that needed and still needs to be done to move from IPv4 to IPv6, if we eventually needed to move to IPv7/8 it would even more difficult given how much IP in general has/is pervading civilization. It's better to have…

When was the last time you tried to memorize (or even type out) a ZFS block pointer address though? The ergonomics don't matter for ZFS, and so what's left to consider is address space exhaustion. For IPv6, people memorize/type IP address all the time. So the IPv6 designers needed to balance the address space size with ergonomics - and they did this poorly, imo.

If you need memorizable IPs, pick something like "2001:db8:2d4f:1::2", which isn't that much longer than the v4 equivalent of "203.0.113.45"+"192.168.1.2". In fact, it's five characters shorter.

Increasing the address space by a factor of 2^96 while still reasonably allowing addresses shorter than the v4 equivalent seems like a pretty good balance to strike, especially when the vast majority of users use DNS or other automatic discovery and thus won't ever interact with them anyway.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#140

Post by whazor »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

There is an added benefit of 'security' every device in your home could have their ipv6 address and because it is 128 bit, it would be harder to guess or perform internet wide port scans.
Post reply on HN