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

251–260 of 649 posts

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

#251

Post by mark-wagner »

gfaster wrote: post #74
withinboredom wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not that ipv4 space is exhausted, there’s plenty of it available. It’s that early on it was mismanaged to the point that people / companies were able to buy entire /8’s for basically nothing and hold them forever.

Related anecdote, my (small) school had acquired a /16 way back and so today, every single device on the network gets its own public ipv4. It was an absolute mess for security (imagine a small army of first year CS majors setting up each a Raspberry Pi) but it was kinda fun being able to experiment with servers without having to worry about NAT.

A long, long time ago my (large) school had 2 /16s and a bunch of /24s and every device--including those in the medical center--got a public, internet accessible IP address. https://itconnect.uw.edu/tools-services-support/networks-con...

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

#252

Post by withinboredom »

jeroenhd wrote: post #249
withinboredom wrote: post #56

Still no ipv6 support with WSL2 in windows. So, if you’re a Microsoft Windows dev in an ipv6 environment, you won’t make it too far.

Quite a strange limitation in my opinion. I understand that dealing with subnetting/host network rebinding to allow full IPv6 can be a challenge (especially if you're on DHCPv6 or some other manually managed thing instead of normal SLAAC) but surely Microsoft could use whatever NAT solution they use for IPv4 to work on IPv6 as well? Apparently support for the protocol can already be enabled ( https://github.com/natha…

Heh, yeah, I opened that issue. Nathan is awesome for maintaining that kernel.

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

#253

Post by jeroenhd »

detaro wrote: post #12
manfre wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communal ipv4 is very problematic for certain services due to bad neighbors causing it to be blacklisted.

Not for hosting services, but for things like accessing Github.

Try accessing the web through TOR and you see why public, shared IP addresses are quite a hassle in practice. Exit nodes don't host anything either, after all.

Actually, that's not even that bad a way to get IPv4 on any IPv6-only host: route it all through TOR!

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

#254

Post by dang »

mort96 wrote: post #225
lzaaz wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put this in your /etc/hosts file and it should work (I don't know if it does as I don't have ipv6) 2a06:98c1:3120::5 news.ycombinator.com

Which is not useful information in this discussion.

Ok, but please don't respond to a bad comment (or one you feel is bad) by posting bad comments yourself. That only makes everything worse.

A better way to counter comments that don't contain useful information would be to add some useful information; or perhaps to post a question explaining what information is missing and asking for it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#255

Post by dang »

noipv6 wrote: post #236
IcePic wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the top rate* for handing out ipv4 some 10 years ago, every such "wasted" /8 would give you days to weeks before being used up again. What do you intend to do when those 2 weeks are up? *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion#/media...

the global burn rate was 4-6 weeks for a /8, iirc but there are waitlists to fulfill, so...you're probably still right. (tl;dr: "repatriate the poorly allocated legacy ip space" is a losing proposition)

Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on HN (they're too predictable and predictability is the antithesis of curiosity) - so I've banned this account. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and we can figure something out.

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

#256

Post by babypuncher »

tjoff wrote: post #78
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…

That is a very one-sided view of adoption. It ties directly with the rise of mobile and internet in areas that wasn't able to grab IPv4 addresses in time. Such as India. Not sure what France is doing though, maybe something right. So, from my perspective (which obviously is tied to my location) is that all computers have IPv4 (haven't heard (and I've asked) of a single consumer ISP that offers IPv6) but all mobile ph…

All the big cable and fiber internet providers I've worked with in the US support IPv6, even evil nasty ones like Comcast have supported it for a decade now.

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

#257

Post by epx »

jeroenhd wrote: post #215
maximaximal wrote: post #188

We are IPv6-only on our institute-internal CPU compute cluster based on slurm. Only the head node has an IPv4 address, so that it can be reached from IPv4 only clients (sadly, there are still quite a lot). All nodes inside the cluster talk over IPv6. And all other computers with IPv6 access use that to communicate to the head node. We are transitioning to IPv6-only for internal services and try to avoid using IPv4 ad…

> Sadly, our local ISP is still IPv4-only, meaning we cannot even access our IPv6 hosts while at home, so we need to fall-back to IPv4 quite a lot. Have you perhaps looked into using tunnels to fix this? he.net can add IPv6 support to any routable IPv4 address that can respond to ICMP. If you need to stick to your internal ULA, something like NPTv6 can translate the /48 subnet HE provides to your own /48 subnet trans…

He.net needs a fixed non-CGNAT IPv4 address, with protocol 41 open, and this is quite difficult to get.

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

#258

Post by bo1024 »

eppp wrote: post #151
tinus_hn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Going by my current experience of managing an ISP, the number of people that care at all about producing anything is almost zero. Out of thousands of accounts I can count on two hands the number of people that want anything outside of the standard ipv4 symmetric 1gb we offer.

When infrastructure makes it really hard for people to produce things, then there's no ecosystem for it and very few people get interested in producing things.

At-home hosting would open up tons of applications. You could have at home video cameras that are actually private (no third party connection). You could share photos with family and friends from a home photo frame - directly. There could be tons of applications that normal people would be interested in.

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

#259

Post by theamk »

throw0101a wrote: post #164
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.…

> And regarding compatibility, with ipv4+ if you have a 0.0.0.0.x.x.x.x ip address you would be able to talk to both ipv4+ aware and legacy ipv4 devices natively without any tunneling (because you also own the legacy, non quad 0 ip address). This exists: > Addresses in this group consist of an 80-bit prefix of zeros, the next 16 bits are ones, and the remaining, least-significant 32 bits contain the IPv4 address. For…

Mayne RFC exists, but it os not used in teal world anywhere. In all servers, I configure IPv4 and IPv6 separately. Network setup is separate. DHCP daemons are separate. Firewall rules are separate. Network monitoring is separate.

I would switch to that "IPv4+" system if it existed.. I am willing to use latest software/standards to future-proof my setup, but duplicating all the work is too much for me.

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

#260

Post by pflanze »

marcosdumay wrote: post #181
spookthesunset wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The nice thing about NAT is open ports on your internal network are hidden to the outside world by default. That is usually not true. NAT punching is a thing for decades now.

- NAT punching does require cooperation of programs on the protected machines, though, no? How is it different from them inviting traffic in any other way (like, requesting a page via https from an infected server could hijack the client on the protected machine if the client has security holes in the right places; the https client is willing to get traffic here, just as some VoIP program is willing to receive a call)?

- And is it any different from a stateful firewall on IPv6?

Post reply on HN