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

Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

vad.solutions

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#91

Post by adrium »

nerdbert wrote: post #87
adrium wrote: post #86

240/4 was reserved for future use more than 30 years ago. When is 'the future' if not now. Furthermore, reservations for 0/8, 127/8, and 224/4 seem mostly useless at this point. Also Ford, Daimler, and Prudential owning huge network blocks and neither even doing business in networking, nor announcing prefixes can be referred to as outright IP squatting (if that term exists). The US DOD seems to be a squatter, too. Ba…

Imagine how many problems would be caused by releasing 0/8 and 127/8 space. There are so many places those are hardcoded, including an uncountable number of internal company applications.

It is irresponsible to use (let alone to hardcode) those addresses in the first place. But in any case, fortunately, software can be patched and it has been done so already in 'tricky' cases: Y2K and X.509 UTCTIME are examples.

My company operates big networks and it caught us off guard when 44/8 got used on the public Internet. Internal tooling used the space because it was assumed to be non-routable. Assumptions like this always carry a risk and sooner or later, they need to be fixed. In our case, a workaround could be produced within hours, and it was fixed within weeks.

0/8 support has been added in the Linux kernel as well.

Edit: scdown.qq.com resolves to 0.0.0.1 and is possibly related to WeChat. I am not sure, if the address is actually routable in China, though.

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#92

Post by cassianoleal »

vasqw wrote: post #42
Sunspark wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some devices coming out now from Google, etc. are IPv6-only and do not support 6rd tunnels at all. Possible further benefit, reaching India and China who certainly aren't issuing IPv4. Hopefully the day comes when people can get static IPv6 addresses instead of a dynamic one behind an ISP NAT.

>Some devices coming out now from Google, etc. are IPv6-only and do not support 6rd tunnels at all. I find this very, very hard to believe. I haven't found anything online. Can you give me some pointers? >Possible further benefit, reaching India and China who certainly aren't issuing IPv4. All Indian and Chinese websites have ipv4 addresses in case I wanted to reach them. I think people should come to terms to the fa…

> people should come to terms to the fact that everybody is moving to cgnat and the world is not falling apart as they said it would.

As someone who's behind CG-NAT, I agree that the world is not falling apart. It is, however, very inconvenient.

The IPv4 Internet has more fluctuation in latency - I imagine it gets worse in periods when many more connections are having to go through the ISP's CG-NAT router, and/or when a lot more volume of data is going through that same bottleneck. It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal.

On top of that, my IPv4 traffic is bundled together with a cohort of cusotmers whose Internet behaviours I know nothing and have no control about. This affects my reputation on things like CAPTCHAs and other forms of access control. It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal.

I can't get into my own network from an IPv4-only external network without resorting to routing contortionism. It's not the end of the world, but it's not ideal.

CG-NAT requires expensive and power-hungry equipment, which in turn means more maintenance, more complex infrastructures, more equipment failure and replacement and increased energy usage.

It's not the end of the world.

But it may well be contributing to it.

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#93

Post by cassianoleal »

midasuni wrote: post #37
PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get static IPv6 addresses instead of a dynamic one behind an ISP NAT. Some UK ISPs give out /48s (cough Sky) but with dynamic allocation. So you reboot your router and every single IPv6 device on your network needs to re-address. Makes routing/port forwarding a PITA and nearly impossible using IPv6.

Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range, meaning an internal re number, unless you use NAT, in which case you may as well use ipv4 and nat. If you have two ISPs (say a backup 5G) then you have to renumber every time the main goes down. If you want to load balance you’re screwed, unless of course you use nat. Residential ISPs won’t allow you to bgp peer your own /48

> Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range

I bet most people change ISPs with a frequency that's a fraction of the frequency they reboot their routers.

In any case, only a few devices in most households require static public IPs (only the ones you connect to from the outside directly). If you put those in DNS, all you need to do is change their AAAA records.

For internal comms, IPv6s in the link- or site-local ranges are better anyway.

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#94

Post by xen2xen1 »

midasuni wrote: post #37
PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get static IPv6 addresses instead of a dynamic one behind an ISP NAT. Some UK ISPs give out /48s (cough Sky) but with dynamic allocation. So you reboot your router and every single IPv6 device on your network needs to re-address. Makes routing/port forwarding a PITA and nearly impossible using IPv6.

Even if it was static changing the ISP will result in a new public range, meaning an internal re number, unless you use NAT, in which case you may as well use ipv4 and nat. If you have two ISPs (say a backup 5G) then you have to renumber every time the main goes down. If you want to load balance you’re screwed, unless of course you use nat. Residential ISPs won’t allow you to bgp peer your own /48

I guess that's a good point, even if my ISP did have IP V6, I'd need to get a static from that too. Bet they'd want me to pay extra for that one on top of the V4 cost.

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#95

Post by Sunspark »

vasqw wrote: post #42
Sunspark wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some devices coming out now from Google, etc. are IPv6-only and do not support 6rd tunnels at all. Possible further benefit, reaching India and China who certainly aren't issuing IPv4. Hopefully the day comes when people can get static IPv6 addresses instead of a dynamic one behind an ISP NAT.

>Some devices coming out now from Google, etc. are IPv6-only and do not support 6rd tunnels at all. I find this very, very hard to believe. I haven't found anything online. Can you give me some pointers? >Possible further benefit, reaching India and China who certainly aren't issuing IPv4. All Indian and Chinese websites have ipv4 addresses in case I wanted to reach them. I think people should come to terms to the fa…

> >Some devices coming out now from Google, etc. are IPv6-only and do not support 6rd tunnels at all.

> I find this very, very hard to believe. I haven't found anything online. Can you give me some pointers?

Google Wifi, Mercku M2, etc. have been reported as not having support for 6rd or 6to4.

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#96

Post by thamer »

gorgoiler wrote: post #21

The ghostly amount of v6 space is so exciting to see. One day we’ll need to physically route a whole block to another planet — there’s no point using BGP when the ping from Earth to Mercury is 230,000ms at best. I love IPv6 and it’s so exciting to see it used widely at last. My mobile device is v6 although it’s still dual stack. Home networks are doomed to by v4 forever so your 1990s eToaster can display Yahoo! News!…

> ping from Earth to Mercury is 230,000ms at best.

Not really your point I know, but I was curious about this so I looked it up. The closest Earth and Mercury get is 77.3 million km[1], which is 515.7 seconds round-trip (ping) at the speed of light.

[1] https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact....

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#97

Post by mkj »

killingtime74 wrote: post #83
mkj wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need to buy as expensive cgnat hardware if a greater proportion of traffic is ipv6. That's the rationale given by an up-and-coming ISP in Australia.

Which ISP? (am curious as an Australian)

Aussie Broadband

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#98

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

alduin32 wrote: post #79
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #4

In considering the rollout of IPv6, end users often get marginalized. This is frustrating to me. When we try to highlight ISPs who refuse to deploy IPv6, mobile services get highlighted - as if homes and businesses could just use them instead of wireline. If that doesn't end the discussion then IPv6 acolytes will go on about transit traffic or anything else until IPv4-only users go away and stop ruining their optimis…

It even happens to ISPs themselves to get marginalized in this way. I work in a small local ISP, and we're fully IPv6-ready, but the publicly funded optical networks we use to reach our clients are not IPv6 ready. It should just be a simple VLAN, transported how they please, that connects us to our client, but no, the infrastructure operator built a mess just to connect us to our clients, I suppose just transporting…

> the publicly funded optical networks we use to reach our clients are not IPv6 ready.

> We small operators need to set up tunnels to provide IPv6 to our clients. ... And yes, of course, this infrastructure operator, Covage/XPFibre is owned by Altice, who also owns SFR,

I might be misunderstanding who the private and public actors are. To clarify, is Altice is over the tunnel infrastructure?

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#99

Post by dtaht »

themoonisachees wrote: post #68
daneel_w wrote: post #50

Can anyone write a little bit on 240.0.0.0/4 ("Future use"), 48.0.0.0/8 ("Prudential securities", same as Wachovia?) and 25.0.0.0/8, what they are about and why they're seemingly entirely unused?

240/4 ("class E") addresses were intended a buffer for future allocation, but they can't use it for global unicast because a lot of equipment considers any IP above 239.255.255.255 to be invalid. There have been RFCs to make it formally global-unicast and local-unicast but none have succeeded because of the above-mentionned poorly programmed equipment. That said, if you know your equipment can handle it like some net…

There have been multiple attempts at making 240/4 globally useful. It pretty much just works on most gear today (except windows), but the resistance by the IPv6 crowd to opening up 1/16th of the ipv4 internet for general use, astounding. There have been multiple internet drafts that did not make it through the relevant committees. Example: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-240-03....

Re: Posters of the IPv4 and IPv6 internet as of Jan 1, 2023

#100

Post by nerdbert »

adrium wrote: post #91
nerdbert wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine how many problems would be caused by releasing 0/8 and 127/8 space. There are so many places those are hardcoded, including an uncountable number of internal company applications.

It is irresponsible to use (let alone to hardcode) those addresses in the first place. But in any case, fortunately, software can be patched and it has been done so already in 'tricky' cases: Y2K and X.509 UTCTIME are examples. My company operates big networks and it caught us off guard when 44/8 got used on the public Internet. Internal tooling used the space because it was assumed to be non-routable. Assumptions li…

I doubt anything containing 0.0.0.1 is advertised in China (it's definitely not outside of China). Looks like an address someone would use to indicate an error condition.

... which is just another example of the zillions of cases that would have to be dealt with.

Sure, each one is probably quite easy. But the sheer number of them is huge, and many of them will only be uncovered after they fail, setting off a frantic search for the retired guy with the source code.

With Y2K there was a combination of self-interest and hysteria that motivated organizations to tackle it. With this, it's harder to make that case because IPv6 is here already. I'm sure very few of those applications with hardcoded 0.0.0.0/8 are IPv6-ready, but everyone else can move ahead with IPv6 and those old apps will keep working for years to come. Unleashing 172.0.52.7 as someone's residential IP address will result in seemingly random failures that cause headaches for the ISP, application developers, and corporate IT departments. It'll be a very unpopular idea.

Post reply on HN