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

IPv6 Deployment Status

datatracker.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#61

Post by throw0101b »

anonym29 wrote: post #43
zoky wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently moved, and was mildly annoyed to find that my ISP didn’t assign me an IPv6 address. Then I remembered that, in order to get one at my previous location (same ISP), I had to call and specifically request it. That was six years ago . If they haven’t defaulted to giving out IPv6 addresses by now, it’s never gonna happen. I honestly can’t figure out why they don’t, as it has to be cheaper to just do it than ma…

I will be calling to complain if I am not assigned an ipv4 address by default. Very first thing I do whenever I move or get a new router is disable all ipv6. All of my client devices have ipv6 disabled. ipv6 takes a very simple addressing schema and unnecessarily turns it into an entire beeping protocol for no reason. I don't care if I have to write angry letters to senators to pass laws forbidding the sunsetting of…

> ipv6 takes a very simple addressing schema and unnecessarily turns it into an entire beeping protocol for no reason.

IPv6 is simpler than IPv4 in that you don't need to setup infrastructure (e.g., DHCP) to get going.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#62

Post by Volundr »

DrThunder wrote: post #46
hackeraccount wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting up IPv6 on my home network was fun and exciting now it's just boring. The only time I've noticed it was was once when IPv4 broke (dhcp server issue) and another time when IPv6 itself broke (radvd issue). All that said I do sort of wonder when or if we'll ever move off dual stack. I think there's a strong argument that running two protocols at once is riskier then the combined risks of the two.

I can't imagine too many businesses will be switching to it internally unless forced to. ISP's and mobile carriers are one thing.

Anecdote: a company I used to work for was growing rapidly by acquisition, which ended up being the motivation to go ipv6 internally. With IPv4 every new company was basically guaranteed to have an internal network that conflicted with one of our existing subnets, so we either had to re-ip them, which was brutal or put crazy NATs on our VPNs alongside dns insanity. Going IPv6 meant that getting them on our mesh was simple. Just enable IPv6 on their network (which was far easier than most network admins fear it will be), then join their IPv6 network to the mesh, let their IPv4 be whatever it was. Update all DNS servers to have AAAA records. No more conflicts!

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#63

Post by ectospheno »

dale_glass wrote: post #50
menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

IPv6 is actually better for privacy. First, the IPv4 address space is tiny. Say, a PING packet is 84 bytes, so pinging the entire IPv4 address space will take you all of 336GB of traffic each way (not even accounting for the reserved parts). That can be done in the space of an hour in a decent connection. So things can and are being trivially found by brute force. If a vulnerability is found in something interesting…

The privacy is real. Moved to only binding ssh to ipv6 addresses on the internet. Cleanest ssh logs you will ever see. Basically invisible.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#64

Post by LinuxBender »

throw0101b wrote: post #59
LinuxBender wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a breakdown by network type? e.g. Cellular Network, VPS Provider, Home ISP, IoT, etc... The reason I ask is that last numbers I saw somewhere were thrown off by VPS providers and cellular providers. Cellular had no choice but to go IPv6 due to sheer numbers of users. VPS was easy due to the ephemeral nature of VM's. People could slowly adopt it at their own rate.

> The reason I ask is that last numbers I saw somewhere were thrown off by VPS providers and cellular providers. How are these situations "throwing off" the numbers? There seems to an underlying assumption in this statement that if you (e.g.) stream a Youtube video from your cell phone (over IPv6) it is "invalid" (less valid) but if you stream it on your desk/laptop from your (IPv4-only) home or work's ISP it is (mor…

How are these situations "throwing off" the numbers?

I know many will disagree with me and that is fine, but cell phones will not drive adoption since they have to add plumbing for IPv4 regardless. The phone just has to route to the destination. Adoption will come when businesses are required to have IPv6 to make money, or conversely will lose money when they lack IPv6. I personally would exclude cell phones and VPS providers from numbers to get a real snapshot of meaningful adoption. Home ISP's and commercial businesses are probably more useful to see how far along IPv6 adoption is progressing.

In my opinion and experience when people are given a temporary work around such as ipv6toipv4 gateways, that work around becomes permanent and will stall adoption of the long term solutions.

Of course they have a choice: they could spent millions of dollars getting IPv4 address for their customers

Probably up to a point. They would have eventually hit a wall from port depletion as CG-NAT on gateways only scales so far. It works on home end-points because there are not typically tens of thousands of people at a home. It falls apart quickly when used on a gateway. Anyone that has managed many SNAT pools or a WAN optimizer in large companies has seen this first hand and can share their pain.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#65

Post by [deleted] »

Zen1th wrote: post #31
BrianGragg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaned on heavily to protect cheap IOT devices. Could you imagine the bot armies if every IOT device was NOT behind a NAT?

NAT shouldn't be used as a replacement for a firewall. So the answer was always to set up a firewall.

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#66

Post by throw0101b »

LinuxBender wrote: post #64
throw0101b wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason I ask is that last numbers I saw somewhere were thrown off by VPS providers and cellular providers. How are these situations "throwing off" the numbers? There seems to an underlying assumption in this statement that if you (e.g.) stream a Youtube video from your cell phone (over IPv6) it is "invalid" (less valid) but if you stream it on your desk/laptop from your (IPv4-only) home or work's ISP it is (mor…

How are these situations "throwing off" the numbers? I know many will disagree with me and that is fine, but cell phones will not drive adoption since they have to add plumbing for IPv4 regardless. The phone just has to route to the destination. Adoption will come when businesses are required to have IPv6 to make money, or conversely will lose money when they lack IPv6. I personally would exclude cell phones and VPS…

> Adoption will come when businesses are required to have IPv6 to make money, or conversely will lose money when they lack IPv6.

Well IPv4 is currently going for US$ 40/IP:

* https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales

* https://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing/

It actually peaked at over $50 for a while:

* https://circleid.com/posts/20230207-the-ipv4-price-inversion

If you want to spin up (or expand) as an ISP or a cloud provider there's CapEx associated with getting IPv4 addresses (or if you're a 'regular' business that wants to multi-home with multiple ISPs). I don't see how that can continue indefinitely give the finite 2^32 addresses available.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#67

Post by aPoCoMiLogin »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #28
menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

The only difference is, that you're not "protected" by nat, so packets going back to you, can go back to you (but this is solved by a simple firewall installed by default on pretty much any ipv6 enabled CPE). With ipv6 privacy extensions, your IP address changes every few minutes (withoin the same /64 network) so it's not a lot different (privacy wise) than today, wher that whole network would be hidden behind a sing…

NAT doesn't protect anything, firewall does that

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#68

Post by LinuxBender »

throw0101b wrote: post #66
LinuxBender wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are these situations "throwing off" the numbers? I know many will disagree with me and that is fine, but cell phones will not drive adoption since they have to add plumbing for IPv4 regardless. The phone just has to route to the destination. Adoption will come when businesses are required to have IPv6 to make money, or conversely will lose money when they lack IPv6. I personally would exclude cell phones and VPS…

> Adoption will come when businesses are required to have IPv6 to make money, or conversely will lose money when they lack IPv6. Well IPv4 is currently going for US$ 40/IP: * https://auctions.ipv4.global/prior-sales * https://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing/ It actually peaked at over $50 for a while: * https://circleid.com/posts/20230207-the-ipv4-price-inversion If you want to spin up (or expand) as an ISP or a clo…

I don't see how that can continue indefinitely give the finite 2^32 addresses available.

Agreed. I think that's why we don't see a lot of new ISP's starting up and instead there are resellers provisioning on existing networks. The big kids are sitting on a lot of IPv4 space and there is no longer a way to pry it from their hands and now that to your point the IP's are worth more they will kick and scream if someone tries to take the unused space. In the early days ARIN and RIPE would harass people that didn't actively use their space but that stopped and I have no idea why. I remember having to set up Labrea to make several /16's, /17's and /19's pingable so they would leave me alone but that isn't a thing any more.

Re: IPv6 Deployment Status

#70

Post by rmwaite »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #5
menotyou wrote: post #2

Citation "IPv6 was designed to restore the end-to-end model of communications with all nodes on networks using globally unique addresses. But considering this, IPv6 may imply privacy concerns due to greater visibility on the Internet."

The IETF has never gotten off its anti-NAT high horse.

NAT is a terrible hack
Post reply on HN