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

Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 649 posts

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#91

Post by jrmg »

bombcar wrote: post #40
arcade79 wrote: post #31

I was thinking about ipv6 the other day. I concluded in my head that adoption was just around 5-10%. Luckily I went to verify that with statistics. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html While price of ipv4 addresses are increasing, the world has slowly been adopting ipv6. From the graph above, I'd say we cross over 50% in about 2-3 years time. At some point the "dash" to adopt ipv6 starts, and brave fol…

I'd love for some way to measure how much of my network's traffic outbound and inbound is IPv6. I assume there's some way to "count" it on the router, but Mikrotik doesn't seem to expose it directly.

I don’t know if this corresponds to traffic, but my local DNS server shows that it’s returning more AAAA results that A results (_just_) nowadays.

This is a home cable connection in the Bay Area.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#92

Post by tinus_hn »

blablabla123 wrote: post #85
redox99 wrote: post #32

IPv6 has been one of the biggest failures in the last couple of decades. And I don't mean adoption, I mean the standard itself. If IPv6 were IPv4 with more octets, then we would all have been using it for like a decade. Yes, I understand it would still require some breaking changes, but it would have been a million times easier to upgrade, as it would be a kind of superset of IPv4 (1.2.3.4 can be referred as 0.0.0.0.…

It provides a lot of improvements actually. Stating the obvious, NAT isn't needed anymore. Also with modern Firewalls rules need to be written only once. At this point I'm just surprised why it's not adopted

ISPs love NAT because it is an artificial distinction between producers and consumers, which means they can call the producers ‘pro’ of ‘enterprise’ and charge them through the nose while the consumers can’t cause trouble and just pay for download speed.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#93

Post by Sesse__ »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #25
KomoD wrote: post #18

> Our Hosting provider, Hetzner, has recently started charging for public IPv4 addresses Well actually, they were charging for IPv4 addresses for a while, but just changed pricing... to outrageous pricing. The setup fees are actually insane! And yeah IPv6-only is quite a terrible experience, I tried out a few days ago. I suggest just using nat64.net if you want to access IPv4 sites over IPv6. One quite funny thing, I…

Pricing, fyi: https://docs.hetzner.com/general/others/ipv4-pricing/ Around €19.00 setup per IP.

That's not insane, that's pretty cheap. If you buy IPv4 addresses in bulk (e.g. an entire /18 or so), they're ~$40 a piece these days.

When you buy cloud services from AWS or GCE, you're still paying for those IPv4 addresses, it's just baked into the price. Hetzner makes paying for it optional, which makes it so much more visible.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#94

Post by porbelm »

tjoff wrote: post #45
argulane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything should get its IPv6 configuration via SLAAC. DHCPv6 is only useful when you plan to provide prefix delegation for extra routers or network boot information.

So how do you do DNS then? Not sure if this is a good source but it had some history to recap, and it doesn't look pretty... https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/ajb2ec/comment/... [...] To be honest because of this hot mess if you want to reliably support any possible client you'll need to do both DHCPv6 and RDNSS for DNS information. [...]

The SLAAC should not change after the host has generated it during installation / first connection, as long as you don't reinstall the OS etc.

It's basically no problem.

Even better: I can set my own ::/64 so personal servers at home can be ::d3ad:b33f and accessible from outside without NAT. It's beautiful. Firewall configuration is not hard either these days is it?

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#96

Post by trynewideas »

miyuru wrote: post #43
bombcar wrote: post #34

Setting a website to be available over IPv6 is relatively easy, yet we see: ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;news.ycombinator.com. IN AAAA Why? Because it's not quite as simple as making Apache respond over IPv6; any website of any size has various protections in place to prevent DDoS, spam, etc, and those tools are almost universally basic and at the root is the "ban by IPv4 address". Without that tooling supporting IPv6, it r…

Actually HN is available via IPv6 over Cloudflare. You have to add a CF IPv6 it to the hosts file. In fact I am posting this comment over IPv6.

> You have to add a CF IPv6 it to the hosts file.

That's worse, yeah? You do see how that's worse?

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#97

Post by justusthane »

spookthesunset wrote: post #81
redox99 wrote: post #32

IPv6 has been one of the biggest failures in the last couple of decades. And I don't mean adoption, I mean the standard itself. If IPv6 were IPv4 with more octets, then we would all have been using it for like a decade. Yes, I understand it would still require some breaking changes, but it would have been a million times easier to upgrade, as it would be a kind of superset of IPv4 (1.2.3.4 can be referred as 0.0.0.0.…

It’s the firewall rules that always creep me out. The nice thing about NAT is open ports on your internal network are hidden to the outside world by default. You have to think about which ports you want the NAT gateway to forward. With IPv6 the entire network is reachable outside by default. Granted I assume you can probably create a default DENY rule for inbound traffic and selectively open ports up as exceptions. R…

> Granted I assume you can probably create a default DENY rule for inbound traffic and selectively open ports up as exceptions. Right?

Sure, of course. That’s how firewalls work for IPv4 as well— you have an implicit deny rule at the end, and then allow rules come before it.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#98

Post by noipv6 »

cryptonector wrote: post #51
noipv6 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anyone who thinks "ipv6mess" is still relevant in 2022, doesn't understand the problem space it describes. part 1, interoperability failure/incompatibility: nat64+dns64 has been viable since 2008 part 2, incoherence: dual-stack was the transition plan, & was clearly communicated from the start (to anyone who listened). that turned out to not be so effective since so many ppl ignored the realities of legacy ip depleti…

> anyone who thinks "ipv6mess" is still relevant in 2022, doesn't understand the problem space it describes. It was relevant then -and it is relevant now- because there are good lessons in how to migrate from thing A to thing B, even if some of the then-missing necessary bits are in place now. Still, it's almost certainly the case that DJB's rant had no real effect, and that the necessary steps were bound to be taken…

> It was relevant then -and it is relevant now- because there are good lessons in how to migrate from thing A to thing B, even if some of the then-missing necessary bits are in place now.

it's irrelevant now because there are smoother approaches to migrating to future-proofed networks than existed at the time. the fact that it persists on the internet, unamended, to be regularly presented (two decades later) as some semblance of current realities of the challenges to ipv6 deployment is a disservice to the internet.

> Still, it's almost certainly the case that DJB's rant had no real effect, and that the necessary steps were bound to be taken as the cost of sticking with IPv4 rose.

i would maintain that "ipv6mess" had a NEGATIVE impact on ipv6 adoption overall, as people who saw djb as a tech god accepted his word as gospel, despite it fundamentally being a crybaby rant, & proliferated the misconceptions & opposition therein.

the fact that he explicitly rejected ipv6 patches to qmail & djbdns (resulting in a fork to at least qmail) should not be understated - he didn't just complain about ipv6, he actively sought to undermine its adoption.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#99

Post by exabrial »

ipv6 would be completely unnecessary. Only a handful of things on the internet actually need to be publicly addressable. Even something as simple as SRV record support in browsers would solve 99% of the invented ipv4 "crisis". Furthermore if people could come up with actual technical reasons why NAT is bad, rather than "I don't like it"... because guess what? It's here, it's now, and it's been working just fine for 30+ years.

That being said ipv6 offers some really nice features around flow-ids and getting rid of dumb and dangerous ipv4 flags. Credit is due where credit is due and these debugging features of ipv6 are worth mentioning as they really did get it right.

Despite this, in my opinion, we simply don't have a use case for ipv6. ipv4 + NAT + BGP (and maybe some SRV records) is all humanity needs, forever.

I will continue to disable ipv6 on all the networks and devices I manage, as it's an unnecessary and useless attack surface that ultimately offers me 0 benefit, just downsides.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#100

Post by howinteresting »

Dagger2 wrote: post #70
cryptonector wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anyone who thinks "ipv6mess" is still relevant in 2022, doesn't understand the problem space it describes. It was relevant then -and it is relevant now- because there are good lessons in how to migrate from thing A to thing B, even if some of the then-missing necessary bits are in place now. Still, it's almost certainly the case that DJB's rant had no real effect, and that the necessary steps were bound to be taken…

I'm not sure it was ever relevant. All it does is describe the problem, which was already well-known at the time by the people working on v6. It doesn't give a fix for it. It doesn't give a fix because no fix is possible. Because the problem comes from the design of v4, not from v6. For some reason djb wasn't able to get his head around that, and people have been pointing to that damn page as if it's some big gotcha…

I mean, v6 is still mostly a failure, so (rightly or not) the situation is going to be blamed on the people that have been pushing v6. That's just the cost of trying to push the entire world towards a new standard.

(I know that v6 has been a success within datacenters and such.)

Post reply on HN