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

581–590 of 649 posts

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

#581

Post by [deleted] »

Dagger2 wrote: post #576
topspin wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well ok... the problem stops right there then. Why would anyone expect -- given the low adoption of IPv6 -- IPv6 sans NAT64 to be workable? Why even bother without it? I don't imagine it would be hard to locate any number of IPv6 zealots proselytizing a NAT64-less world, but here we have someone that made a legitimate effort to apply IPv6 and failed because it wasn't there. One fewer potential convert added to the pi…

It's workable if all of the machines you're going to talk to have v6, which is doable. Or you can run your own NAT64. It would also be very easy to suggest that maybe Hetzner want to encourage people to keep paying for v4.

[deleted]

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

#582

Post by Spooky23 »

throw0101c wrote: post #405
Spooky23 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just need to do what the world did - NAT. IPv6 is more than just address space extension. There’s all sorts of stuff packed in there that complicates the process. All mobile clients are behind CG-NAT. We should have built standards around that instead of worrying about extending IP space to Mars or whatever.

> All mobile clients are behind CG-NAT. Demonstrably false. T-Mobile US mobile clients are IPv6-only and connect via IPv6 to IPv6 sites: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNMNglk_CvE NAT is only used to connect to IPv4-only hosts via DNS64 (with or without 464XLAT). As of 2022Q2, T-Mobile US has 110 million customers: * https://www.statista.com/statistics/219577/total-cus…

Mea culpa. I'm away right now, but I'm like 95% sure that T-Mobile Home Internet is NATing, or at least was awhile back when I had trouble. Googling around it sounds like it may operate differently than the mobile phones do.

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

#583

Post by unquietwiki »

ipython wrote: post #547
mike_d wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cogent and Hurricane Electric, the upstream providers of 31% and 17% of networks on the internet respectfully. The reason as an end user you can access both sides of the spit is because network engineers for end user/eyeball networks will buy transit from both.

I’m sorry but how is cogents shitty business model somehow the fault of ipv6? Peering disputes happen on ipv4 as well

I think HE's been begging to peer to Cogent for years now. I've even seen cakes posted online.

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

#584

Post by unquietwiki »

ac29 wrote: post #577
magicalhippo wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And lastly... a lot of IT guys still don't care for IPv6 The issue I have with IPv6 is that it's so complex compared to the IPv4 I know, and still has lacking support in routers and similar. For example, I want to be sure my local devices uses my local NTP server. With IPv4 it's trivial, I just add an option to the DHCP server. With IPv6 I can't do that with RA, I have to use DHCPv6. But Android doesn't support DHC…

> For example, I want to be sure my local devices uses my local NTP server. With IPv4 it's trivial, I just add an option to the DHCP server. With IPv6 I can't do that with RA, I have to use DHCPv6. But Android doesn't support DHCPv6, so I have to run both RA and DHCPv6, and hope it just works out. Out of curiosity, why does this require DHCPv6? Cant you just point your local devices to ntp.homedomain (or whatever the…

I think if you're using the Meinberg NTP client on Windows, or chrony on Linux, that's feasible. Older systems may prefer to snag it from DHCP: which probably would only do IPv4 anyway.

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

#585

Post by victorhooi »

error503 wrote: post #430
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…

Why can't you use it as a firewall? It's weird, and against RFCs for your ISP to only give you a /64, but that should still be routed address space is routed through your router/firewall box, and therefore trivial to firewall with the normal tools. This is also pretty much the necessary topology, because if the box needs to do NAT for IPv4, it needs to terminate the address on the firewall too. You'd need separate in…

I'm dealing with this now as well..=(

Do you happen to have a reference from the RFC, about it being against spec to hand out just a /64?

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

#586

Post by unquietwiki »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #517
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............ ......…

Windows Vista came out in 2007, and it explicitly had a dual-stack IPv4+IPv6 implementation. Around that same time, the BSDs were finishing up KAME, and Linux support was decently mature. That was 15 years ago. Software and OS-wise; with the exception of some features of Mikrotik routers + managed Meraki & Ubiquiti stuff just now getting onboard; the support is there. Node's using it properly now. I was able to update Pidgin to use it 10+ years ago. So I think we've got the software-side long figured out; we just needed to get the damn vendors on-board.

I'm glad we agree on NAT sucking. Though given a lot of ISPs are doing DHCPv6 without fixed net-ranges to clients; a work environment does benefit from having ULAs still; sometimes even with NAT66. Performance & security-wise, IPv6 still wins that battle: most routers disable automatic inbound traffic, and you can pinhole traffic directly between hosts.

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

#587

Post by tumetab1 »

deathanatos wrote: post #246
jedberg wrote: post #228

Every couple of months, I enable dual-stack on my home network, to see if it works. And inevitably I get a terrible experience. Some sites fail to load, others load after a huge delay (presumably because we're waiting for an ip6 timeout of some sort) and some things just don't work right. I'm always too lazy to figure out why these things don't work, but I turn off dual stack and everything works fine again. I'm a ne…

Your experience, and your home network, is absolutely exceptional then. > what chance do regular consumers have? Clearly, quite a good deal, since dual-stack is the default. Nearly half the Internet[1] is using IPv6 using dual-stack just fine, and the other half is using dual stack with a LL v6 because their ISP sucks. Like many others, my laptop routinely travels, and visits a variety of dual-stack and IPv4 only net…

> Your experience, and your home network, is absolutely exceptional then.

Actually, it's not. Just check google for "ipv6 slow internet" and check it's not exceptional. It's normal because many sites/games/software isn't that tested/optimized for IPv6.

Even the basic step of having setup Google/Cloudflare DNS for you forget that you have not set it up for IPv6 might make your experience of IPv6 really bad.

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

#588

Post by AtlasBarfed »

vlovich123 wrote: post #514
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're basically doing carrier grade NAT for that, the same thing that is apparently tooootallly acceptable to the ipv6 people for their big success story: mobile.

The only success story of ipv6 leads us to the solution: backbone-level CGNAT and other hacks, then impose the economic cost on IPV4-only carriers and endusers.

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

#589

Post by AtlasBarfed »

ipython wrote: post #550
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

The government has a poor track record of pushing a technology in this space. They’ve been mandating ipv6 in the dod for - gosh at least since 2008 or so. Oh, and you have the government to thank for the useless posix subsystem for windows back in the 90s (remember that?) as a way to force software “interoperability” between Unix and windows. Companies vying for federal contracts will look at the poorly defined requi…

This is not a complicated regulatory decree.

"THOU SHALT USE IPV6 BY XXXX date or you don't get subsidies and/or lose spectrum and/or lose IPV4 ranges".

This is not designing a new complicated api compatibility. ALLEGEDLY the ipv6 geniuses have everything figured out technically. There is ALLEGEDLY no protocol development, RFC, standards body formation. ALLEGEDLY it's all been laid out. There are some success stories, there are "reference implementations" in production.

Again, it's not like this is hard to disseminate to the necessary powers that be. America is a bunch of monopolies and cartels. That means the regulatory agencies can call like 10 people and tell them the lay of the land. This is not herding a thousand cats with a fork, this is using shock treatment on elephants.

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

#590

Post by fulafel »

dqh wrote: post #474
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.…

I am not a network engineer, but for about 20 years I have wondered why we didn't 'just' do something like: 1. Include an extra 32-bits of address information as an IP options header. Call it an IP4.4 packet. 2. (I think?) IP4.4 packets would therefore happily travel over existing IP4 infrastructure. 3. Each existing IP4 address becomes a potential IP4.4 network with 32-bits of address space behind it. IP4.4 aware ro…

We had a IPv6 transition mechanism that worked a bit like this (but nicer), it was phased out when native v6 support was deemed widespread enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4

Post reply on HN