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

India is almost 80% IPv6

apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#91

Post by AtlasBarfed »

ornornor wrote: post #61

I personally can’t find a reason to switch over on my home network. I understand why v6 is necessary for the internet but I can’t reconcile it with my home network. I tried a few times migrating over and it’s just an insane amount of work for essentially nothing… all the firewall rules, containers to subdomain mappings, all the wifi clients would get a completely new numbering scheme. And it changes when you change I…

Here's the dumb naive question of the day:

Why didn't "ipv6" simply get implemented as:

"Well, our ipv4 addresses of 4x8bit, well, we'll just switch those to 4x64bit or whatever."

Then it becomes like a gradual y2k migration. Old servers could be addressed by the new ones, and if the old ones didn't want to address the new ones, well, that was their problem. You didn't need new infra, addresses, etc, you simply upgraded the software.

Or, using NAT, the 4x64s would provide some NAT port with an 4x8bit address to respond with. As the internet switched over to 4x64 in the DNS and freed up 4x8bit addresses, they could be dedicated to the translation.

I know the ship sailed long ago, but what am I missing here? Can this still be done with some "IPv8" movement where everyone gets fed up with IPv6 hassle, and also just wrap in ipv6 addresses somehow? Why didn't the original group simply expand the size of the numbers in the address quads?

Yeah the current holders of IPV4 ranges would have gotten large segments of address space, but if there are 4x64bit, that's still several universes of per-atom addressing.

As for India, it's unsurprising a nation with a billion people and on the outside looking in of ip address governance is more gung-ho about ipv6 adoption. Plus, India is probably mostly mobile phones in terms of computing, and ipv6 was the basis of mobile phone internet infrastructure from the ground up.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#92

Post by olivermuty »

j16sdiz wrote: post #47
9dev wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing micro USB and now USB-C on electronic devices has been one of the best ideas by the EU overall. Remember using ten different charging cables? Gone, due to a helpful piece of regulation by the government.

Have you tried Nintendo Switch's USB-C charging? It is non-standard.

My 45W lenovo usb c charger works very well to charge switch, but the switch included charger wont charge anything but the switch.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#93

Post by ornornor »

MaKey wrote: post #65
ornornor wrote: post #61

I personally can’t find a reason to switch over on my home network. I understand why v6 is necessary for the internet but I can’t reconcile it with my home network. I tried a few times migrating over and it’s just an insane amount of work for essentially nothing… all the firewall rules, containers to subdomain mappings, all the wifi clients would get a completely new numbering scheme. And it changes when you change I…

There is no need to move your whole private network over to IPv6, although it might provide a good learning opportunity. You could start with enabling IPv6 for your nginx reverse proxy and make it listen on its IPv6 address. IPv6 has subnets too and firewalling is still possible, only NAT isn't needed anymore (which is good). Edit: Reading your post again it sounds like you have mental model of either IPv4 or IPv6, w…

Yes it confuses me very much. If I were to get an ipv4 and and ipv6 to the internet but my internal network stays ipv4, then the ipv6 networking would never get used anyway and I might as well disable it, correct?

Now if I also let internal devices get both a v4 and a v6, they essentially all become directly exposed to the internet through v6 don’t they? That’s the part that really confuses me. And if they aren’t publicly accessible from the internet then I’m back to v4 NAT where I was all along which kinda makes v6 pointless doesn’t it?

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#94

Post by olivermuty »

ftth_finland wrote: post #63
9dev wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has: significantly cheaper internet access once providers have to charge extra for expensive v4 addresses, complex NAT solutions and gateways.

Significantly cheaper is a bit of an overstatement. Savings are pretty much capped at one month of internet service, as that’s roughly what an IPv4 address costs.

8.33% is not a significant gain to you?

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#96

Post by xfer »

fulafel wrote: post #2

Nice. Can anyone from India comment? I imagine a lot of this is mobile, what is the v6 like on fixed broadband?

The ipv6 routing on major ISP(Jio) that started popularizing it is pretty bad, half of the packets go to singapore and back to india. You often need to explicitly use v4 to get better latency.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#97

Post by boruto »

wtmt wrote: post #31

FWIW, airtel broadband, one of the largest (or the largest?) fixed line broadband providers, doesn’t offer IPv6 for all customers. It seems like mobile broadband from even a lower ranking provider (like Vi) does offer it. I doubt if all ISPs will meet this goal by the end of this year. Source: My current Internet connections.

I saw ACT too didn't assign ipv6. Was even planning to put us behind nat. Took fair bit of pleading to keep the vpn running

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#98

Post by qalmakka »

Scoundreller wrote: post #85
qalmakka wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. Especially in the USA lots of mobile phones now have IPv6 connectivity. From https://www.arin.net/blog/2020/01/16/mobile-edge-of-the-inte... "80% of smartphones in the US on the major cellular network operators use IPv6 and major mobile networks are driving IPv6 adoption with Verizon Wireless at 84%, Sprint at 70%, T-Mobile USA at 93%, and AT&T Wireless at 57%" And this were numbers from four yea…

That’s fine and all: but are they issuing mobile phones a publicly addressable IP or not? Can a Verizon subscriber run a web server on their mobile phone and share their IPv6 or not?

NAT66 is, in general, utterly broken and most OSes prefer IPv4 to ULAs - thus, if a mobile subscriber can connect to an external IPv6 service, it's very likely the address they were given by their carrier is publicly routable.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#99

Post by qalmakka »

theamk wrote: post #86
qalmakka wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. Especially in the USA lots of mobile phones now have IPv6 connectivity. From https://www.arin.net/blog/2020/01/16/mobile-edge-of-the-inte... "80% of smartphones in the US on the major cellular network operators use IPv6 and major mobile networks are driving IPv6 adoption with Verizon Wireless at 84%, Sprint at 70%, T-Mobile USA at 93%, and AT&T Wireless at 57%" And this were numbers from four yea…

From practical standpoint, most common NAT setups come with "default deny incoming" firewall, and systems have relied on this fot a very long time. I hope that IPv6 is rolled out to homes, most ISPs would do the right thing and set up customer routers firewall in "default deny incoming " mode. Otherwise, the number of worms would increase a lot.

We may argue that Windows Firewall (and macOS) by default already do that. On Linux, I usually set nftables like such on all my machines, but it's trivial for "user friendly" distros to ship sane defaults for nftables.

What scares me a lot is that lots of folks out there still rely on iptables, and do not realize that they need ip6tables to set IPv6 tables - I dread of the moment some random ISP will push IPv6 routes, SLAAC picks up an IPv6 on a random Linux box and that box gets instantly pwned because it has no ip6tables rule whatsoever blocking inbound traffic.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#100

Post by Epuineeb5 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #91
ornornor wrote: post #61

I personally can’t find a reason to switch over on my home network. I understand why v6 is necessary for the internet but I can’t reconcile it with my home network. I tried a few times migrating over and it’s just an insane amount of work for essentially nothing… all the firewall rules, containers to subdomain mappings, all the wifi clients would get a completely new numbering scheme. And it changes when you change I…

Here's the dumb naive question of the day: Why didn't "ipv6" simply get implemented as: "Well, our ipv4 addresses of 4x8bit, well, we'll just switch those to 4x64bit or whatever." Then it becomes like a gradual y2k migration. Old servers could be addressed by the new ones, and if the old ones didn't want to address the new ones, well, that was their problem. You didn't need new infra, addresses, etc, you simply upgra…

> Why didn't the original group simply expand the size of the numbers in the address quads?

Almost all fields in IP header have fixed size - so it doesn't really matter that you just change address size - it is already a new and incompatible protocol.

And adoption of IPv6 wasn’t so slow due to its design or any technical properties. Simply no one wanted to do additional work as long as supporting only IPv4 worked fine.

Post reply on HN