Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 23, 2024, 9:58 AM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #175

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…

I appreciate the honesty, and the reality is that most add-on developers have a price; a lot of people would probably sell their add-on for $10M. But these things auto update. If a government (or even just a moderately big org) really wants to spy on someone, and they determine that said someone uses IPvFoo, $10M isn't a very large price to pay to just get complete access to the target's web browser. This isn't speci…

Post by dijit » Tue, Jan 23, 2024, 10:04 AM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #177

pilif wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the features of IPv6 is address autoconfiguration, obviating the need for a central authority like DHCP on v4. However, that only works with a /64 prefix and given that larger sites might want to have multiple subnets, that’s why most assignments are /56 or /48. But still. If all assignments were /48s, that would still leave room for 281 trillion networks which even I believe is enough for the foreseeable futu…

I don't understand why getting rid of DHCP is desirable. DHCP provides a nice central place where you can map MAC addresses to IP addresses instead of configuring it ad-hoc on every device which needs a static IP address (if you're lucky and the device even supports static IP!). Checking "Does my interface have an IP address?" is also a really really useful and quick analogue for "is the gear related to the LAN prett…

Post by iknowstuff » Tue, Jan 23, 2024, 10:10 AM UTC

orangeboats wrote: post #184

kuon wrote: post #182

I am so surprised by the hate for IPv6 in this thread. I have been deploying IPv6 for more than ten years and it really improve many situations (beside larger addresses). I have to admit, there is a learning curve. But I want to encourage everybody involved in configuring computers to learn. Also I want to rent about Cisco not using /64 for link local by default, thus being incompatible with BSD systems. Link local m…

>I am so surprised by the hate for IPv6 in this thread. I find that HN views IPv6 noticeably more harshly than many other communities I have been a part of (e.g. networking subreddits and gaming communities). I am curious of the reason behind this.

Post by JustFinishedBSG » Tue, Jan 23, 2024, 10:13 AM UTC

ta1243 wrote: post #154

mike_d wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARIN recently handed out a /16 allocation to Capital One. That is one 65,025th of all of IPv6. A reasonable sized /32 allocation would have allowed for giving every ATM they operate worldwide its own globally routable /48.

I find the insistence of using /64s everywhere for networks frustrating. Any network larger than a /112 seems crazy, that's already 65k IPs per subnet. A /104 for every normal end user (256 subnets per user), or a /80 for massive companies like Capital One (4 billion subnets) should be more than enough.

Post by geraldhh » Tue, Jan 23, 2024, 10:14 AM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #112

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 don't understand what you mean by complicating firewall rules,except maybe that you now need to use IPv6 addresses instead of IPv4 addresses in some of the rules. It's not like NAT without a firewall gave any security in 2024.