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

191–200 of 318 posts

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

#191

Post by rnhmjoj »

remram wrote: post #159
K2L8M11N2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can if you have NAT64:

    $ ping 64:ff9b::1.1.1.1
    PING 64:ff9b::1.1.1.1(one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101)) 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=10.4 ms
    64 bytes from one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=10.0 ms

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

#192

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

throw0101b wrote: post #183
remram wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router. How would that even work in theory? How would a ('legacy'?) host that only understands the 32-bit data structure of IPv4 addresses talk to a >32-bit data structure IPv6 addressed host?

If it truly encapsulated IPv4, then there wouldn't be two stacks. It would be one stack and legacy devices could snip the xtra bits (or have it done for them via a router).

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

#194

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

rnhmjoj wrote: post #191
remram wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can if you have NAT64: $ ping 64:ff9b::1.1.1.1 PING 64:ff9b::1.1.1.1(one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101)) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=10.4 ms 64 bytes from one.one.one.one (64:ff9b::101:101): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=10.0 ms

And then we are back to NAT...

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

#195

Post by loa_in_ »

remram wrote: post #159
K2L8M11N2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you can "ping $address" regardless of which IP version it's using. Please, elaborate what are you trying to solve.

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

#196

Post by mike_d »

throw0101b wrote: post #150
mike_d wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advocates often drag out the [large number]% of IPv6 in some case or another. It is only thanks to "happy eyeball" algorithms in the browser which prefer v4 when v6 is broken or non-performant that mitigate end user complaints to the point that people can just kind of turn it on in some state of broken and forget about it.

> It is only thanks to "happy eyeball" algorithms in the browser which prefer v4 when v6 is broken or non-performant that mitigate end user complaints to the point that people can just kind of turn it on in some state of broken and forget about it. There are entire ISPs that are IPv6-only at the CPE and have to deal with brain-dead software that can't handle it and so have to spend enormous amounts on CG-NAT: * https…

That specific article is about streaming, which absolutely provides a better experience over v4. As much as we like to pretend that the presence of v6 implies a "dual stack" environment, the reality is that at the transport layer v6 is a lot of hasty hacks to make a vocal minority happy.

You still can't talk to Hurricane Electric from Cogent over v6. Lots of v6 links are still tunnels. v6 PMTU Discovery was a massive mistake that introduces latency.

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

#197

Post by rnhmjoj »

throw0101b wrote: post #183
remram wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I can't `ping ::ffff:192.168.0.1` and have it ping my router. How would that even work in theory? How would a ('legacy'?) host that only understands the 32-bit data structure of IPv4 addresses talk to a >32-bit data structure IPv6 addressed host?

You need a translator, i.e. a middle host with dual IPv4/IPv6 stack that can convert an IPv4 packet to an IPv6 packet and v.v. By the way, it's not just theoretical, it exists and it has been standardised, see https://nicmx.github.io/Jool/en/intro-xlat.html#ipv4ipv6-tra...

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

#198

Post by fanf2 »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #152
systems_glitch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

IPv4 has 24 bits for allocating network prefixes. All of these prefixes have been allocated, and they change hands for as much as $15,000 each.

IPv6 has 48 bits for allocating network prefixes.

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

#199

Post by Dagger2 »

kalleboo wrote: post #105
runjake wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a large multi-campus network. At least 75% of our outgoing Internet traffic is IPv6. Looking at home ISPs accessing our services, it’s at least the majority of them coming in on IPv6. My guess is it’s a similar ratio as outgoing. IPv6 has issues but it hasn’t failed.

> At least 75% of our outgoing Internet traffic is IPv6 One question I have about this statistic (and also about Google's IPv6 statistic) is, does traffic mean raw bytes? And in that case, is this just a reflection that like 75% of all internet traffic is just YouTube and Netflix due to video being a bandwidth hog? (I'm a huge proponent of IPv6 - I just wish we had more useful statistics!)

The GP's statistic is probably raw bytes, and yes, a significant chunk of that will be the big video streaming sites, which mostly have v6. That's still a useful statistic, because part of the cost of v4 is NAT and NAT capacity is measured in terms of number of packets.

I guess you're thinking that the number of v4-only websites is much higher than the traffic numbers represent -- which is true but that's actually fine because v6-only clients can still reach those sites easily via NAT64, so having a lot of v4-only websites isn't blocking deployment of v6 or undeployment of v4. The only real problem it causes is that people use it as an excuse to not do v6...

As for Google's stats, they're probably percentage of either connections or users as measured by their frontend load balancers.

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

#200

Post by BizarroLand »

LinuxBender wrote: post #153
poizan42 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

OK, so let's just crank it all the way to 11, since 11 is 1 more than 10.

I think smarter people than me can handle all the technical underlayment, but when it gets to the point of where the techs and sysadmins are using it, it should have an 8 digit hex key at the start and then an IPv4 "alike" address at the end, and 0000:0000:-whatever should encapsulate the current network schema for backwards compatibility.

Then new systems would get 0000:0001:- and on. That would add 4 billion entire internets to the system and still work at the fundamental level like the current one. Your IPv11 layer would only be used at the edges where the systems leave your wlan, and they could send your mac address as the swapover key or use it as part of the key when sharing security data, and the best part is that end users and clients would not need to know anything more about the network to make it work than that 8 digit string, and most of them, especially home and mobile users, wouldn't even need to know that. It would stop at your modem and be handled by the cell carriers and your home internet providers.

Post reply on HN