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

511–520 of 649 posts

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

#511

Post by remram »

mappu wrote: post #357
buildbuildbuild wrote: post #11

This problem led us to self-hosting Gitlab four years ago, I can't believe it's still an issue in 2022. It's appalling that a "developer product" like Github remains such a blocker to IPv6 adoption, especially for highly Github-reliant communities like the Golang ecosystem. Launch an IPv6-only VM and try to build a mainstream Go project.

Most of Go dependencies these days come from your $GOPROXY, which by default (proxy.golang.org) is available over IPv6 just fine.

Go grabs GitHub repos over a proxy hosted by the Go project? How comes?

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

#512

Post by AtlasBarfed »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #417
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.…

OMG! What were we all thinking! Thank you redox99 for figuring this out. Only now that you have pointed out this idea is it suddenly obvious. But, since this is, you know, the entire internet , can you maybe write a more detailed specification? So like, when my TCP stack creates a presumably backwards compatible IPv4 header, where does it put the extra 4 bytes? Or do we only send these IPv4+ packets to devices that w…

Please look at the structure of an IP header. Note the "options and padding" section.

Also SECTIONS of the internet (that is, routers) can have IPV4+ packets wrapped in IPV4 packets that will transmit them through "IPV4-old" only branches.

We pretend like the major routing backbones aren't known and fairly set in stone, and that routers don't know about each other.

Yeah, his approach doesn't fix the Comcast-doesn't support-IPV6 and is stuck in old IPV4. But those places are using NAT of their own.

If we have all these cgnats and other address translations happening, well shit how is that different that the IPv4 wrapping ipv4+ and other things.

Also, oh yes please give me more fucking ports. IPv6 keeping the same number of ports is stupid. Please give me 64 bits of ports. Ok, I'll take 32.

If you use 10.44321 for a port number these days, well I have no sympathy for you. As for /24, clearly that will mean "IPV4 /24", and whatever new protocol will use some other convention like /000024. But /24 maps to a bit mask. You just interpret the bit mask differently.

Yes I am handwaving a ton of stuff. A ton. But ipv6 basically said "fuck you our way or the highway" and here we are.

At this point, maybe we need a superprotocol ipv8 that will wrap the ipv6 address space, the old ipv4 address space, into an even bigger address space. Get the router vendors and designers back in the room.

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

#513

Post by remram »

maximaximal wrote: post #234
marinesebastian wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all these limitations, why did you prefer IPv6 over IPv4?

Because we don't want to use 20 IPv4 addresses for the cluster of 20 nodes, when we only have so much addresses assigned to our institute. We could have gone the NAT route, but then we'd need to have some router. And if we designate the head node as router, all traffic would not go through the switch directly, but first through the head node and then out. This would mean that the nodes are less independent, as they h…

But you still need NAT right? To support outbound connections from the worker nodes?

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

#514

Post by vlovich123 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #510
vlovich123 wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when your 4.4 packet hits a router box somewhere out there that doesn’t understand 4.4? Where’s it going to send that packet? To the wrong address (or potentially even create an infinite loop). Now what?

I understand what you're saying, but isn't IP supposed to be about routing things around failure points? So routers that "know" IP 4.4 would "know" what routers aren't 4.4.

By definition you’re trying to retain back compat. So you have a 4.4 source IP address. You try to establish a TCP connection to a legacy IPv4 website that isn’t 4.4 aware. What address is that website sending the response back to? Even if it is 4.4 aware, how do you guarantee it’s taking a path back through 4.4 aware servers? The whole point of adding an option header is to allow unmolested transit through existing IP stacks. If you’re saying you’re routing around them, then you’ve bifurcated the networks and you’re back to IPv6.

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

#515

Post by unquietwiki »

error503 wrote: post #421
theamk wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are viable transition mechanisms other than dual stack, that put some kind of translation layer between protocols, rather than expect native IPv4 connectivity on all hosts. This is perfectly viable, and is how many mobile networks handle IPv4 (ie. there is no native IPv4 on the handset at all), and how many cloud providers are handling it these days too. You have to do NAT at the border anyway, why not NAT to/f…

You might appreciate this. Basically, it leverages Babel routing to bridge IPv4 with IPv6.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9229/

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

#516

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

bert64 wrote: post #486
fernandomm wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget about the idea that ISPs would distribute a /56 range to residential users. You could split it in /64 ranges according to your requirements and everything would work fine. There is only one "minor" issue: all major ISPs in my country ( Brazil ) only provide a single /64. You can't get another /64 unless you upgrade to a very expensive business plan. That makes IPv6 not only useless but also a huge se…

Those ISPs are broken and not following the RFCs or RIR guidelines. There's nothing stopping you from using NAT with IPv6, people just don't do it because the only benefit of NAT is conserving limited address space. NAT on IPv6 just brings all downsides and no benefit because you (should) have no shortage of address space. In any case v6 with nat is no worse than legacy ip with nat, its just stupid because they're fo…

> the only benefit of NAT is conserving limited address space.

It's also a privacy feature which ensures I am able to hide the number of unique devices in my network.

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

#517

Post by AtlasBarfed »

unquietwiki wrote: post #459

Hey all... unquietwiki from r/ipv6; been lead-mod there for a while now (though the rest of the folks are really amazing on the mod-side). IPv6 has saved my bacon more times in the past 15 years, than IPv4 has fought with me. No clashing of IPv4 ranges. No fighting with NAT. Ability to easily have concurrent networks, for different purposes. Ability to assign multiple network addresses. Internally, it "just works" on…

So the largest expansion of general availability compute (and associated addressing needs) occurs and it ignores ipv6.

Re: 50% ... Your ipv6 numbers are very likely mobile, are they not? And those all CGNAT to ipv4 land? So the entire ipv6 mobile space (the biggest victory of the ipv6 war) is basically behind the #1 thing that ipv6 hate more than anything: a NAT.

If you can't get ISPs to support it............

............... ...............

ISPs! The central access points to the internet for consumers! THE MAIN PEOPLE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE CORRALLED. If you didn't get these people on IPv6 within a decade of the protocol, well I don't know what to say. I can't explain the massive degree of failure. Well, I don't have to, look at this thread. I just hear excuses. Blah blah ISPs Blah blah VMs blah blah kubernetes.

If the ISPs don't support ipv6, then the software applications CANNOT be upgraded. If it is 2022 and there are major failures in ipv6 support (and there are) in places like comcast and the like, then whose fault is that?

It is the fault of the ipv6 organizations, designers, ratifiers, etc.

To underline, in America we have MASSIVE monopolies on consumer ISP access, and have for decades. That means in order to wrangle these organizations, you, what, get 10 people in the room and the FCC and get it hammered out?

IPV6 isn't just a failure of protocol design. It is a massive failure of organization and outreach. The attitude, rife throughout all ipv6 conversations, is the protocol designers forced it on the internet and said "take it or leave it".

The issue is ipv4 has ALWAYS been easier for a programmer. ipv6 always makes for more headaches. This is a massive massive failure. IPV4 networking sucks! NAT! bridges! Gateways! Prozies! port forwarding! CGNAT! It's still all easier than ipv6. Think about that.

The issue here is that ipv6 has no hammer. It didn't have the FCC on board or some ultra-powerful group that could deliver the hammer.

This is like IE6 (what is it about the number 6? don't answer that), that required a grassroots rebellion in silicon valley to dislodge. Well, and Google Chrome.

GET A HAMMER. Idea: GOOGLE IS THE HAMMER.

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

#518

Post by exabrial »

zekica wrote: post #204
exabrial wrote: post #99

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 3…

NAT is not working fine. Have you ever needed to set up STUN + TURN?

Never actually once in 30 years.

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

#519

Post by mike_d »

unquietwiki wrote: post #459

Hey all... unquietwiki from r/ipv6; been lead-mod there for a while now (though the rest of the folks are really amazing on the mod-side). IPv6 has saved my bacon more times in the past 15 years, than IPv4 has fought with me. No clashing of IPv4 ranges. No fighting with NAT. Ability to easily have concurrent networks, for different purposes. Ability to assign multiple network addresses. Internally, it "just works" on…

> And lastly... a lot of IT guys still don't care for IPv6; as those biases show up in these & on Reddit; so that perpetuates the cycle

You know the 3rd and 7th largest networks on the internet still can't reach each other over IPv6, right? It is super awesome that it "just works" for you, but recognize you might just not have the perspective of one of the people who has to make it "just work" for you.

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

#520

Post by AtlasBarfed »

ipython wrote: post #314

I have to say I’m super disappointed in the ignorance and negativity in the comments on this thread. Ignorance of both the difficulties inherent in upgrading a fixed size wire protocol designed for a research network fifty years ago, and the widespread adoption of ipv6 for real customer deployments. Heck most of you are probably using ipv6 through your mobile carrier and don’t even know it!

You're essentially blaming the victim.

The ISPs still haven't adopted it after 25 years.

ISPs are a massive monopoly in the USA. IPV6 can't be adopted by software until a sufficient number of the backbone works. I've heard that "the backbone is all working for ipv6". Um, is comcast? Wasn't last time I had comcast.

If the ISP monopolies aren't 100% ipv6 (and you see lots of comments here that ipv6 support in ISPs is still "substandard") and convenient, then you can't blame the software people.

Look at your success story in mobile (which is behind a huge NAT to translate things to the "real" internet by the way). How did that work? Oh, you probably wrangled the three or four mobile companies into a room and got them to agree on protocols. Wow, success.

This needs to happen for the rest of ISPs. The fact it hasn't isn't a software issue, it is a governance issue. The failure is in the governance, the outreach with the real policy hammers like the FCC and ISP monopolies.

The governance has failed. It's been failing about 15 years longer than it should. FIFTEEN YEARS OF FAILURE!

Stop blaming reticent programmers, because IPV4 networking is still much much much easier than ipv6 in software, and IPV4 networking SUCKS between NATs and bridges and internal/external IPs and port mappings and what's-my-ip-on-the-other-end and dynamic DNS. Ohmygod it sucks. And ipv6 is worse than that!

Stop blaming the software people. IPV6 governance and outreach failed. Failed failed failed failed.

I don't want ipv6 to fail. I WANT STATIC IPs! EVERY PROGRAMMER WANTS STATIC IPS!

Get the ISPs and FCC in a room. Get google and microsoft and whoever else you need to lean on them. Get Amazon and google and microsoft IAAS into a room (hm, look, the same companies basically) and lean on them to support ipv6.

Post reply on HN