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

Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 396 posts

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#81

Post by notatoad »

p1mrx wrote: post #69
notatoad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool, but "read and change your data on all websites" is imho not worth the functionality. that seems ripe for takeover by some scammer.

IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…

yeah, i appreciate that. my post wasn't meant as a criticism, it's a cool project and i'm happy your extension exists.

i have no reason to think you'd sell out to scammers, but stranger things have happened and for a product whose whole utility to me is "huh, that's cool" it's not worth it. and i thought that was worth highlighting to others. some chrome extension hygeine is always good.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#82

Post by viraptor »

Kab1r wrote: post #63
lmm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well it should be redesigned so it works all the way down to individual addresses. Why? What's wrong with how it works at the moment?

I actually have the issue where my ISP gives me a single /64 and it makes it difficult to split between multiple LANs.

What do you mean by that? What you do inside your assigned range is completely up to you - you can split that up as you want.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#83

Post by p1mrx »

janardanyri wrote: post #75
p1mrx wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPvFoo author here. The problem is that there's no way to obtain the (hostname, ip) stream from Chrome/Firefox without requesting the "all websites" permission. In theory, browser vendors could define a narrowly-scoped permission that only reports (hostname, ip), or roll this functionality into the browser UI, but neither seems likely to happen. I made IPvFoo to promote IPv6 adoption, and wouldn't consider selling it…

Just wondering, do you expect non-scammers to have the $10m?

No. I expect that I won't sell it because it's worth more to me than anyone else.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#84

Post by toast0 »

rumdz wrote: post #36

Does ipv6 result in higher latencies? I could see larger addresses increasing latency, but then again I could also see a more efficient protocol resulting in lower net latency. I should probably read a book describing the differences.

Real world performance differences between v4 and v6 are more likely to be influenced by different routing and network manipulation for v4 vs v6 than the larger address size.

If your v4 goes through NAT and v6 doesn't, that's a big thing.

If you have different peering and transit providers in v4 and v6, that's a big thing.

If overhead from address sizes was really a big deal, we'd see work to push larger MTUs and working MTU discovery, but that kind of stalled a while ago. 1500 works for a lot of people, and many major sites drop effective MTU by 20 or so and that makes more things work, and then it gets swept under the rug. (OTOH, I think Android may have finally gotten MTU probing enabled after many years of shipping it disabled; Apple has had very effective probing, at least on iOS for a long time)

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#85

Post by viraptor »

rumdz wrote: post #36

Does ipv6 result in higher latencies? I could see larger addresses increasing latency, but then again I could also see a more efficient protocol resulting in lower net latency. I should probably read a book describing the differences.

Possibly due to routing differences on the path to your service, but not due to the protocol itself. Definitely not due to the address size. Beyond your local equipment, that switching normally happens in hardware.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#86

Post by toast0 »

supertrope wrote: post #16
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would things be faster over v6?

Simpler routing because address blocks are not fragmented. IPv6 does not have a header checksum so that's one less task for routers. Packet fragmentation is no longer done by routers. IPv6 capable gear tends to be newer and higher performance. There's no NAT step or even worse CGNAT.

> Packet fragmentation is no longer done by routers.

The overwelming majority of IPv4 packets have the DF bit set. A large number of services drop inbound fragments anyway (if you get more than a couple a minute, it's almost certainly abuse).

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#87

Post by whatwhaaaaat »

danpalmer wrote: post #7
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would things be faster over v6?

IPv6 was a lot more than a numbering scheme, there are performance (and security?) improvements in a number of aspects of IP networking, like more compression in parts of the messages IIRC.

Gonna have to disagree with that. IPv6 was designed in the 90s and lots of it feels like it is. Icmpv6 is fundamental to the implementation and already responsible for multiple remotely exploitable vulnerabilities. Couple that with almost no one understanding it well besides a true handful of engineers and you have yourself a security nightmare. Proof of this is this very thread with the talk about “trying a local link address”.

Everything about v6 is over engineered with sharp edges.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#88

Post by p1mrx »

Kab1r wrote: post #63
lmm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well it should be redesigned so it works all the way down to individual addresses. Why? What's wrong with how it works at the moment?

I actually have the issue where my ISP gives me a single /64 and it makes it difficult to split between multiple LANs.

Shitty ISPs will always give you as little as they can get away with. If the software enforces /64, they'll you /64. Raise the limit to /128 and they'll give you /128.

At least with the current state of affairs, you have the option to use ND Proxy instead of NAT66.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#89

Post by whatwhaaaaat »

Dwedit wrote: post #32
mise_en_place wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ll get a lot of hate for it, but I think you’re speaking the truth. IPv6 is probably one of the worst modern standards (tied C++ templates). Nobody has ever made a convincing argument about the advantages of it over IPv4. Just another case of fools admiring complexity. PHB types love it even more, it’s filled with buzzwords like the “future” of networking.

Advantage: Not out of addresses.

We’ve been “running out of ipv4 space” since before i got a freakin us robotics modem.
Post reply on HN