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

291–300 of 396 posts

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#291

Post by dns_snek »

bombcar wrote: post #274
dns_snek wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you even begin to imagine a use case that could come close to exhausting an IP space that is perfectly capable of assigning a /60 subnet to every single grain of sand on earth? That subnet is large enough to then assign an IP address to every individual atom in that grain of sand. For comparison, if we wanted to assign every living person on Earth a grain of sand, we would only need a few cubic feet of it (less t…

Allowing a credit card company to have a /16 is one way to do it. Do that 65,535 more times and IPv6 is exhausted.

Fair point, but that's politics and bad actors, no standard can survive that.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#292

Post by JohnFen »

op00to wrote: post #249
gary_0 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that mean if you move, or if your ISP changes your IP, all your local devices will end up with different addresses? I have an internal DNS server and it would be annoying if it could randomly break and require me to update all the IPs.

My local devices end up with new ipv6 addresses daily.

> My local devices end up with new ipv6 addresses daily.

Isn't that a pain in the butt?

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#293

Post by ianburrell »

JohnFen wrote: post #288
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 don't hate IPv6, but I am putting off switching my network to it for as long as I can get away with. There's nothing I do that IPv6 makes better, and switching to it is a very large and painful task, so delaying that switch until it's required doesn't seem unreasonable.

You don’t have to switch your network to it, you just have to enable it. The system to decide between IPv4 and IPv6 works pretty well. I can’t tell if accessing HN over IPv6 cause doesn’t matter.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#294

Post by ianburrell »

uuddlrlrbaba wrote: post #259
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 have to admit, there is a learning curve. But I want to encourage everybody involved in configuring computers to learn. This is probably most of it. My gripe is that there is essentially no realistic end to ipv4 in sight. So we as an industry carry the debt of securing, managing and troubleshooting parallel v4 and v6 networks for decades. If ipv4 had an EOL it'd make the transition so much better

We have reached the point where it is feasible to run all new networks on IPv6 and treat IPv4 as legacy protocol on the edges and special devices. NAT64 works well enough for most IPv4 access. IPv6 network greatly simplifies networking.

IPv4 will never go away, but will be smaller part of the Internet.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#295

Post by vel0city »

bmacho wrote: post #208
ffomni wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the 4 in IPv4 has nothing to do with its addresses typically being represented in dotted 4-octett notation. That's a coincidence. Each address is a 32 bit number, that's it. Early versions of IPv4 as well as some of the experimental IPv3 drafts actually used 128 bits. In IPv6 there are 128 bits for each address. Nothing to do with 6, which is just a version number. Second, IPv6 is not just about address…

You and Plasmoid completely misunderstood dheera and me. I failed to clarify this misunderstanding explicitly (I still don't see where does it come from), so I do it now. > 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. As you can see, dheera did not state th…

> the trivial extension of the IPv4 protocol

It wouldn't be trivial in practice. You'd still end up needing to replace everything in between. And if you're going to replace everything in between, you might as well upgrade it to something much larger instead of taking little half steps that will need to be repeated again and again.

> preserving the existing IPv4 addresses

But it wouldn't really in the end. 0.0.1.2.3.4 is still a different address than 1.2.3.4. You'd still end up needing to translate 0.0.1.2.3.4 to 1.2.3.4, aka a 6to4 tunnel. So, you're in the same place in the end as where we are with the current IPv6, just with only a baby step in changes that will probably need to be upgraded again in the future.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#296

Post by wharvle »

sylware wrote: post #224
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…

IPv6 will rid us from the abomination of domestic NAT. IPv6 will, finally, enabled the real internet: all p2p protocols will start to work seamlessly. I am thinking a super simple no-dns IP (audio|video) phone protocol listening only on tcp 1 port, new bittorrent like protocol for live streaming, etc. Since IPv6 has been almost everywhere in my country for years: enjoying ssh session everywhere (ipv6 mobile internet)…

Those of us who were supporting Windows machines in the ‘00s remember when 100% of Windows machines not behind NAT were pwned in minutes, while those with NAT were fine indefinitely. Should a firewall have been doing that job? Yes. Were firewalls doing that job, in practice? No, NAT did, and it was very, very effective.

I have… concerns about removing NAT from everyone’s house now that IOT is a thing. Could it be done safely? Yes. Will it? Signs point to no.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#297

Post by JohnFen »

ianburrell wrote: post #293
JohnFen wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't hate IPv6, but I am putting off switching my network to it for as long as I can get away with. There's nothing I do that IPv6 makes better, and switching to it is a very large and painful task, so delaying that switch until it's required doesn't seem unreasonable.

You don’t have to switch your network to it, you just have to enable it. The system to decide between IPv4 and IPv6 works pretty well. I can’t tell if accessing HN over IPv6 cause doesn’t matter.

I've been looking into keeping my network IPv4 in an IPv6 world, and it looks like there are a lot of sharp corners and kinks that make that problematic.

In any case, considerations like that are part of why I'm putting off any serious effort or decisions until it's required.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#298

Post by op00to »

JohnFen wrote: post #292
op00to wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local devices end up with new ipv6 addresses daily.

> My local devices end up with new ipv6 addresses daily. Isn't that a pain in the butt?

You’d think so, but dns magically works for me. Wish I had a better answer ha ha.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#299

Post by op00to »

gary_0 wrote: post #264
op00to wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local devices end up with new ipv6 addresses daily.

So if I'm checking local server log files to debug a problem that started a few days ago, I can't easily tell where the incoming connections are coming from?

You can configure a static ip if you use IP addresses as an identifier. You can also keep track of who had what ip address.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#300

Post by ianburrell »

gary_0 wrote: post #238
globular-toast wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up with IPv4 too but after learning and configuring my network for IPv6 I won't miss v4 at all. It's just so nice having each device with its real IP address rather than some private NAT thing. Then it's just firewall config if you want to run servers etc rather than messing with NAT configs.

Doesn't that mean if you move, or if your ISP changes your IP, all your local devices will end up with different addresses? I have an internal DNS server and it would be annoying if it could randomly break and require me to update all the IPs.

You can add ULA addresses to devices and use those in local DNS. Or just use the automatic link-local ones, One of the best things about IPv6 is support for multiple addresses per host and using them in different contexts.

I stopped maintaining local DNS and use mDNS instead which updates automatically.

Post reply on HN