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

101–110 of 396 posts

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#101

Post by wjholden »

CSSer wrote: post #5
tlivolsi wrote: post #2

[flagged]

The next few months may be hard for you. AWS will start charging for ipv4 on February 1st, so it’s likely that either a mass migration is coming or prices for many services will increase accordingly to pass that cost along to customers.

I actually did exactly this.

I run a very small site for a local club from an AWS Nano instance. Minimum cost is important. When AWS announced that they would begin charging for public IPv4 addresses, I enabled IPv6 on the subnet (which was tricky), updates the DNS record, and removed the IPv4 address.

In my case, no one notices or cares because they almost always access the site through their cell phones.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#102

Post by tsimionescu »

rumdz wrote: post #46
imoverclocked wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The address space has very little effect in the real world. Other latencies far outweigh anything measurable by having slightly more bits in the address. Eg: Sometimes IPv6 is faster due to routing differences.

That makes sense. I'm very curious about real-world studies. As a gamer, I'm especially interested in the affect ipv6 has on UDP for real time gaming applications. That's an area where even 5ms can have an enormous affect on the experience.

That's a very interesting case, as UDP is very reliant on MTU. If the IPv6 headers take out more space from the ethernet frame, that leaves less space for the UDP payload. Which means that a UDP payload which was at the limit for IPv4 on the typical MTU needs to be fragmented into two IPv6 packets, which will likely increase latency quite significantly.

However, this will depend on each specific game, if they are using all the available space or not. If they're sending 200 byte datagrams, they shouldn't see any difference.

On the flipside, IPv6 has a larger minimum MTU than IPv4, so it could happen that your maximum UDP payload actually goes up when switching to IPv6. So, if the game previously had to send 5 packets to do an update, it might be able to send only 3 when it can rely on IPv6, so maybe latency actually significantly improves.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#103

Post by dheera »

ceroxylon wrote: post #12

As someone who grew up on IPv4, i will miss it, but the leap to 340 undecillion unique addresses is exciting in many ways so i think i can learn to live with this transition. If we ever need more than that, i can't even imagine what that future would look like.

I grew up with IPv4 (1.2.3.4) and I was expecting IPv6 to just be 1.2.3.4.5.6 with backward compatibility so that 1.2.3.4 would just be 0.0.1.2.3.4 and the 1.2.3.4 dude wouldn't need to change their address.

And the IPv8 would be 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 whenever we need it, but probably not for a long time

When I saw all the double-colons and slashes and monstrosities like f00f:00f:::ea//dead::beef/3 I just kept using IPv4.

I can't even remember Google's IPv6 DNS ffs. 8.8.8.8 was easy to remember. Now it's got some hex bullshit in it and a double colon thrown in somewhere.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#105

Post by [deleted] »

lmm wrote: post #52
londons_explore wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, that only works with a /64 prefix Well it should be redesigned so it works all the way down to individual addresses.

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#106

Post by johnklos »

apapapa wrote: post #90

IPv6 is still pretty useless to most people... Actually for me it complicates my firewall rules and don't bring any benefits (yeah down-vote me and don't reply ...)

I'll downvote you AND I'll reply. It complicates firewall rules? How about pass everything out, keeping state, and block everything in, for all of your fragile devices that can't help but run services you can't turn off? There. Your IPv6 firewalling is done. Is that complicated?

You can't see any benefits? Ok. So what does that have to do with HN being available over IPv6?

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#107

Post by Plasmoid »

dheera wrote: post #103
ceroxylon wrote: post #12

As someone who grew up on IPv4, i will miss it, but the leap to 340 undecillion unique addresses is exciting in many ways so i think i can learn to live with this transition. If we ever need more than that, i can't even imagine what that future would look like.

I grew up with IPv4 (1.2.3.4) and I was expecting IPv6 to just be 1.2.3.4.5.6 with backward compatibility so that 1.2.3.4 would just be 0.0.1.2.3.4 and the 1.2.3.4 dude wouldn't need to change their address. And the IPv8 would be 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 whenever we need it, but probably not for a long time When I saw all the double-colons and slashes and monstrosities like f00f:00f:::ea//dead::beef/3 I just kept using IPv4.…

Another person who does not understand IPv4.

IPv4 isn't a text based protocol where IP addresses are parsed like DNS. It's a binary protocol where addresses are recorded in binary and adding more address space WOULD BE A BREAKING CHANGE.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#108

Post by codetrotter »

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…

> IPvFoo author here

It makes sense that you would notice the change then :D

Was this a situation where you had to do a double-take? Like, you opened HN today and saw that your extension said IPv6 and for a split second you wondered if your extension had made a mistake? Before seeing that indeed HN has IPv6 now.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#109

Post by tsimionescu »

CSSer wrote: post #5
tlivolsi wrote: post #2

[flagged]

The next few months may be hard for you. AWS will start charging for ipv4 on February 1st, so it’s likely that either a mass migration is coming or prices for many services will increase accordingly to pass that cost along to customers.

The IPv4 price is still tiny, and you anyway have to pay for it since going IPv6-only is not viable for a service in 2024 still. It's not going to significantly move the needle towards IPv6. And the price hikes will also be tiny.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#110

Post by schroeding »

Plasmoid wrote: post #107
dheera wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up with IPv4 (1.2.3.4) and I was expecting IPv6 to just be 1.2.3.4.5.6 with backward compatibility so that 1.2.3.4 would just be 0.0.1.2.3.4 and the 1.2.3.4 dude wouldn't need to change their address. And the IPv8 would be 0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4 whenever we need it, but probably not for a long time When I saw all the double-colons and slashes and monstrosities like f00f:00f:::ea//dead::beef/3 I just kept using IPv4.…

Another person who does not understand IPv4. IPv4 isn't a text based protocol where IP addresses are parsed like DNS. It's a binary protocol where addresses are recorded in binary and adding more address space WOULD BE A BREAKING CHANGE.

For a practical demonstration: That's the reason decimal IPs work, too - i.e. http://3520653007/ is the same as http://209.216.230.207/ (and both will go to HN) - it's all just nice formating for our human brains.

Nothing would stop us from formatting IPv6 the IPv4 way except the monstrous length of the resulting address.

Post reply on HN