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

The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

apenwarr.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 318 posts

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#151

Post by voyagerfan5761 »

nikanj wrote: post #123
kalleboo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt a big company would draw the line in the sand. But I could see an upstart (think TikTok) not having up enough IP addresses and just giving a crappy, slow proxied experience over IPv4, but having it be native, zippy and good over IPv6. Suddenly you have teens begging their parents to switch ISPs.

That comes with a major assumption that switching ISPs is an option. Most people get to choose between their cable company, or a fleet of ill-trained pigeons

As an example, the options where I am right now (thankfully temporary) are:

- $55/mo. 3 Mbps DSL

- $80/mo. 300 Mbps cable (or even more expensive, faster cable)

- $120/mo. 100+ Mbps (if you're lucky) Starlink

- A few other heavily restricted, very expensive satellite options (e.g. HughesNet), to which the aforementioned fleet of ill-trained carrier pigeons might be preferable

Only one of those is practical and (mostly) reliable for anything remotely approaching something like remote work.

Back home it's such a luxury to be able to choose DSL, cable, or fiber. I can only dream that all markets will have an actual choice between Internet service providers someday.

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#152

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

systems_glitch wrote: post #147
Helmut10001 wrote: post #77

About a year ago I started the IPv6 migration for my home network (2 Remote sites, connected via IPSEC, with 10 VLANs (subnets) and about 70 devices, 10 people). - I started on one side of the IPSEC, where I have an OPNsense - there were like 5 updates of OPNsense in the last year where different IPv6 issues were fixed (and others have been introduced). - my ISP only hands out /64-Prefixes, and these are also dynamic…

I really really don't get ISPs' difficulties in deploying IPv6. The only conclusion I can reach that actually makes sense is that they don't have the in-house talent to deploy it and refuse to hire someone who does. I guess there's just not enough pain in staying IPv4-only or halfway implementing IPv6 to make them get up and do something about it?

IPv6 doesn't actually solve any problem people wanted to solve.

IPv4 (as used in practice) has 48 bits of addressing, we don't need more.

What we do need is a standard way to do address translation for routing decisions, to replace the 1001 half-baked solutions for VPN and overlay networks that are used today. (Linux has something like five or six "standard" ways to tunnel IP over IP. WTF?)

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#153

Post by LinuxBender »

poizan42 wrote: post #120
GordonS wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As such it is not better enough than IPv4 That's the crux of it. Sometimes I think we'd be better off forgetting about IPv6, and starting afresh with an IPv7 - something that provides a meaningful incentive to upgrade.

IPv7 was used for the "TP/IX: The Next Internet" proposal from 1993: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1475 The next available version is IPv10

We may wish to skip that one as well. [1][2]

[1] - https://www.noction.com/blog/ipv10

[2] - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-omar-ipv10/10/

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#154

Post by unethical_ban »

greyface- wrote: post #29
unethical_ban wrote: post #28

I've only dabbled in IPv6, but the one thing that blew my mind was that you cannot set DNS automatically without DHCPv6. Other methods of "automatic addressing" are thus useless.

RFC8106 IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8106

Nice! I last looked at IPv6 in 2019 ish. I wonder how I missed this. Or perhaps the support for it in consumer routers is low?

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#155

Post by unethical_ban »

kccqzy wrote: post #39
unethical_ban wrote: post #28

I've only dabbled in IPv6, but the one thing that blew my mind was that you cannot set DNS automatically without DHCPv6. Other methods of "automatic addressing" are thus useless.

I guess you haven't heard of RDNSS yet? Doable as part of RAs.

I had not, or had forgotten.

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#156

Post by K2L8M11N2 »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #145
lproven wrote: post #96

I have several times cited it as a key article, more insightful than almost anything else I've ever read about IPv6, but I concede it is overlong and unclear and needs more illustrations. (Which, as a technical writer myself, I generally regard as a crutch.) I think the core argument can be summarised as this: 1. IPv6 is flawed because it has 2 main layers, but it needed 3. 2. It understands physical addresses, and i…

The single biggest mistake IPv6 made was not encompassing the entire IPv4 space within it to ease transition. As it is, I am seeing a transition to either non-IP or LISP/HIP based methodologies due to security and attestation concerns.

But it does, that's what ::ffff:0:0/96 is for

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#157

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

growse wrote: post #134
cyberax wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8 bits for the home network feels cramped even now, my home network is at 56 devices. But 16 bits are fine for end-user networks. And once you go over 16 bits, you really need to start dealing with routing. > In the IPv4 world they can even have 24 bits (10.0.0.0/8) why should IPv6 have only 16 bits? It's definitely not enough. This is not a fair comparison. You won't have a 10.0.0.0/8 network in IPv4 that has 16 mil…

> And once you go over 16 bits, you really need to start dealing with routing. Disagree. you don't want to be routing unless you actually have to. A large flat network is more desirable a lot of the time (e.g thousands of devices in a DC) than a bunch of artificially carved up subnets. The reason you don't see them very often is because people have had to use IPv4, which means ARP, which just doesn't scale. At some p…

Except security... every network I build, ALL traffic between hosts/apps must go through an inspection device.

Due the mass use of encryption and overlays, you can't trust any process or device any more.

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#159

Post by remram »

K2L8M11N2 wrote: post #156
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The single biggest mistake IPv6 made was not encompassing the entire IPv4 space within it to ease transition. As it is, I am seeing a transition to either non-IP or LISP/HIP based methodologies due to security and attestation concerns.

But it does, that's what ::ffff:0:0/96 is for

I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router. There is a range reserved for representing IPv4 addresses, but the stack doesn't translate.

Re: The world in which IPv6 was a good design (2017)

#160

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

K2L8M11N2 wrote: post #156
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The single biggest mistake IPv6 made was not encompassing the entire IPv4 space within it to ease transition. As it is, I am seeing a transition to either non-IP or LISP/HIP based methodologies due to security and attestation concerns.

But it does, that's what ::ffff:0:0/96 is for

Those aren't publicly routable though... that's the problem.
Post reply on HN