231–240 of 353 posts
Anyone go out of their way to disable IPV6 on all their systems, even at the hardware level, like on routers etc? What's a good reason to avoid IPV6?
Maybe it's me, maybe I have a bad config or bad hardware, but it just doesn't work for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I understand how NAT works. But CPU/memory is going down in cost way faster than bandwidth demand is increasing. Regardless, its way way cheaper than buying IPv4 blocks clearly, otherwise people wouldn't be doing it. Edit: ok, the problem isn't hardware, it's comedy license fees. https://itprice.com/juniper-price-list/cgn.html $470k for a license to do CGNAT at 100gbit/sec. Surely these guys are opening themselv…
> $470k for a license to do CGNAT at 100gbit/sec. Surely these guys are opening themselves up to be replaced with some cheaper open source based software solution? Good. CGNAT needs to die. Addressing is fundamental and customers deserve not just an address, but their own RANGE, especially now that it's feasible.
a man can dream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 amounts to a firmware update which the current hardware is and any future hardware will be capable of. The major hurdle in scaling Starlink is fast and cheap deployment of 1000s of satellite hardware. At the moment, the sole focus of SpaceX in relation to Starlink is to get their V2 satellites to orbit in order to keep up with bandwidth demands. V2 requires the Starship system which is yet to make it to orbit. T…
It’s really too bad that ipv6 is only… checks notes… 26 years old now. I realize that may be an unreliable metric, so it’s roughly equivalent to 2.88 react.js lifetimes, or 3.25 vue.js lifetimes. When the ipv6 spec was released, the latest python release did not yet support list comprehensions. In other words, there is no reason to not support ipv6 out of the box in 2022.
i'd go even further and say that no ipv6 support means obsolescence.
“In December 1998, IPv6 became a Draft Standard for the IETF,[2] which subsequently ratified it as an Internet Standard on 14 July 2017.” 40% adoption after 25 years? Really highlights how terrible IPv6 is in terms of backwards compatibility. What we needed was an internet protocol with the benefits of IPv6 that runs as an extension to the IPv4 stack. The current approach to duplicate everything into IPv6 is wasteful…
IPv6 is perfectly backwards compatible with IPv4 with the IPv4-in-IPv6-address embedding and other technologies. The problem is that IPv4 is not forward-compatible with anything that has a larger address space. Thus a IPv4-only host will never ever be able to communicate with a non-IPv4 host, since there is no way to encode more than 32-bit of information in the IPv4 header. So you will always end up in this situatio…
Like I could envision a simple router-like device doing this.
As long as there is sufficient penetration of these black boxes, virtually everything should be able to talk to everything over v6, and the v4 shim can be removed.
I imagine this black box could be a relatively inexpensive ASIC or FPGA that could be a stand-alone widget, baked into hardware network adapters, or just built into routers, middleboxes, etc.
I sure wish Starlink supported IPv6. They're a brand new ISP planning for millions of customers and decided from the start they couldn't get enough IPv4 addresses for everyone. Fair enough! But we're stuck with Carrier Grade NAT and it is a drag. On Starlink it's impossible to host a server socket directly, which makes any peer to peer networking a PITA. Geocoding IP addresses doesn't work so I have to bend over back…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because maintaining state for GCNAT tables is far more complex then just forwarding packets. But it’s a solved problem with mature solutions, decades old. Is it really financially expensive?
compared to rolling out IPv6? definitely, especially on the longer term. For instance, most Core/Edge routers (my experience is mainly with juniper MX series, but i assume the model is roughly the same for other vendors), you need specific licenses or interface card's to do stateful services like NAT. Compared to doing IPv6, which is "just forwarding packets" and doesn't require the hardware to track state in nearly…
Meanwhile, Github is completely unreachable via IPv6 to this day. Found that out the hard way the other week when I went to order a build server without an IPv4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s really too bad that ipv6 is only… checks notes… 26 years old now. I realize that may be an unreliable metric, so it’s roughly equivalent to 2.88 react.js lifetimes, or 3.25 vue.js lifetimes. When the ipv6 spec was released, the latest python release did not yet support list comprehensions. In other words, there is no reason to not support ipv6 out of the box in 2022.
> there is no reason to not support ipv6 out of the box in 2022 Use the age of a service as the metric, not the absolute year we're in. It's probably reasonable to say that there is little reason not to support IPv6 for an ISP with X years of operation. Starlink is young still. An analogy is worldwide sales for a new laptop company. You can say that in the age of globalism, there is no reason not to ship to every con…
"Our staff is more familiar with XP. We promise we're still working on the Windows 10 drivers, but in the meantime you can try to run it in VMWare."