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

40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#341

Post by SuperQue »

collsni wrote: post #126
jlouis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It rotates about once a day in most operating systems. Called ipv6 privacy extensions. This is of course defeatable, but it provides a nice black hole for a device. It moves on and you can't connect to it anymore.

yeah im not sold by this. i want all of my source traffic to show my gateway as the origin, not my unique end devices. privacy nightmare

I work for a large online service. We barely need your IP to track you. There are _so_ many other variables sites can use to track you. Even when you switch networks completely.

You're fear of IP tracking is outdated.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#342

Post by kazen44 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #305
kazen44 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how are you going to keep this counter? Do you identify the bytes that are processed in individual flows? Which system will keep track of this? the control plane of the router maybe? great... you just added additional complexity instead of just pushing packets through a forwarding plane.

When an unrecognized flow shows up, punt it to software. Handle the counter there, and if it overflows then you drop the packets. No need to add anything to the control plane.

"punting it to software" from a router with seperate control and forwarding planes perspective, is forwarding it to a control plane, instead of relying on the logic programmed inside the ASIC to forward traffic.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#343

Post by Dylan16807 »

kazen44 wrote: post #342
Dylan16807 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When an unrecognized flow shows up, punt it to software. Handle the counter there, and if it overflows then you drop the packets. No need to add anything to the control plane.

"punting it to software" from a router with seperate control and forwarding planes perspective, is forwarding it to a control plane, instead of relying on the logic programmed inside the ASIC to forward traffic.

Sorry, I meant no need to add anything to the forwarding plane, or interfere with its efficiency at all.

The point is, the really fast part doesn't need to be more complex.

The part that handles new connections needs to be marginally more complicated, but not enough that it should really matter.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#344

Post by BirAdam »

Dagger2 wrote: post #329
BirAdam wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any given resource, as it becomes more scarce, goes up in price thus preventing there ever being zero of the given resource. The “world ending” result that fear mongering press outlets pushed is therefore not possible.

So why did you ever pay any mind to them? The world isn't going to end just because v4 addresses are scarce (...and I don't think anybody was arguing that it would...), but that doesn't make the problems any less real, expensive or damaging.

Good question. No idea. Hate reading? I am not certain. Probably should reflect on it a bit.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#345

Post by est31 »

kortilla wrote: post #339
est31 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to beef up your v4 infra as much though. Think 4 powerful v4 routers instead of 5 or something. If the traffic to the big streaming providers doesn't have to run through these routers, you can save a lot. Same goes for the ipv4 address space you have to rent/buy. The more connections are on ipv6, the less public ipv4 addresses you need to have. So ipv6 support might be saving you costs already in a dua…

Take a step back to the wider context of a brand new ISP though. If you’re rushing to market like Starlink appears to be, you either implement just v4 and scale later or implement both v4/v6 up front. Until there is a bunch of exclusive v6 stuff customers will be up in arms over missing, the answer of which thing to prioritize is obvious.

Yeah I guess it's the same as with the inter satellite communication which is promised for later, but not implemented yet so that they get at least some product out to customers. I don't think dual stack is that hard to do for entirely new networks though.

Also, one of the reasons to do satellite internet is lower latency which is a bit hurt by CGNAT infrastructure.

Last, generally brand new ISPs are in the situation that they have a hard time of getting ipv4 address space. The incumbents, especially the older ones, were around when ipv4 addesses were still plenty so they usually have way less problems with ipv4 address space. Starlink only has 166k ipv4 addresses according to https://ipinfo.io/AS14593 . Compare this to AT&T which has over a hundred million for their AS 7018 https://ipinfo.io/AS7018 alone, and there are other AS numbers they have like AS20057 with 7 million ipv4s. This roughly matches the number of AT&T customers while Starlink has more than double the number of subscribers than its number of public IPs, with growth ahead.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#346

Post by fulafel »

londons_explore wrote: post #201
lima wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A little surprised that a new ISP created in 2021 wouldn't have IPv6 support as one of their launch features. Worse, they had it and turned it off at some point!

Unfortunately customers tend to be happier with IPv6 turned off. There are lots of ways to misconfigure IPv6 and have it kinda work but slow and unusable. This is especially the case when you let users bring their own router.

Not really: Like was mentioned upthread, with CGNAT you end up fate sharing the reputation of a single v4 address with other customers, you get CAPTCHAs or just outright lack of service (eg instagram aggressively rate limits per IP). Not to mention worse service with apps that can use end-to-end connectivity when availabe, like video calls etc.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#347

Post by novok »

sneak wrote: post #181
p1mrx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a non-residential IP address is likely to get you blocked from services like Netflix. It would be nice if there were some way to decouple connectivity from addressing, without becoming a second-class citizen of the internet.

A good way is to refuse to give money to such services, which being unable to access them, dovetails nicely. Incidentally this also makes torrenting safe, and everything on Netflix can be downloaded via BitTorrent.

4K high bitrate HDR / dolby vision + dolby atmos is surprisingly a pain to find in general.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#348

Post by roamerz »

Dagger2 wrote: post #324
roamerz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is id10t proof though. It takes a concerted effort to set a static internal IP then NAT traffic to it and then allow that traffic through the firewall. The other advantage is that it obfuscates the internal addresses. IPV6 is is unnecessarily complex for what it solves. How hard would it have been to just add an additional octet? Pretty sure a large number of those that embrace it just love the opportunity to cha…

Quite hard, actually, since that's mostly what v6 already does and you can see how many things need to change to accommodate it. Most other parts of v6's design are the same as v4, so it's not really very complicated compared to what we've already got. (Of course v6 adds more than just one octet, since one additional octet wouldn't be enough even for the current size of the Internet, let alone for future growth. It w…

Yeah I don’t buy the argument that we would have to do it again immediately. Unless i’m wrong- which I may be - adding an octet would increase the number of IP addresses x 255 give or take. Using the excuse of running out of addresses to do an unnecessary wholesale change is my definition of really stupid.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#349

Post by ngetchell »

withinboredom wrote: post #29
ngetchell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand the sentiment, NAT does so much to protect most users, it should be considered a security feature.

NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer routers generally set up NAT, I can see why you'd say that (despite there being standard ways to forward ports without any user intervention such as uPnP). There's nothing "secure" about NAT.

Not having client devices accessable via unique IPs is a great security feature. Certainly an unintended side effect but NAT is what is dropping unwelcomed incoming traffic on consumer devices.

Re: 40% of Google users now connect via IPv6

#350

Post by withinboredom »

ngetchell wrote: post #349
withinboredom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT itself doesn't provide any protection at all. You can set up NAT in dozens of different configurations (1:1 NAT comes to mind), but in the way consumer routers generally set up NAT, I can see why you'd say that (despite there being standard ways to forward ports without any user intervention such as uPnP). There's nothing "secure" about NAT.

Not having client devices accessable via unique IPs is a great security feature. Certainly an unintended side effect but NAT is what is dropping unwelcomed incoming traffic on consumer devices.

You mean a firewall? NAT doesn’t have to drop any packets. It can translate unknown flows into broadcast packets, forward them to a set ip (dmz), or drop them. NAT is not a firewall, even if some configurations make it kinda sorta, if you squint, look like one.
Post reply on HN