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

301–310 of 396 posts

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#301

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#302

Post by JohnFen »

op00to wrote: post #298
JohnFen wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I assume it's possible to prevent machines from changing their IP address? I have a few where DNS cannot reasonably be used and I use raw IP addresses instead.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#303

Post by tambre »

rini17 wrote: post #285
harshreality wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What problem is not solved by various DNS and local-addressing options, but is solvable by some other aliasing scheme that isn't DNS under another name, and can you outline how a better aliasing scheme would work? Background and current options, as I'm aware of them: "IPv6 addresses are too difficult" objectors don't seem to want a solution to the ease-of-use problem that leverages aliases, because DNS is that. They…

Solved you say? So how do I set up DNS for LAN hosts that under IPv4 would have static private addresses? Under IPv6, you run into problems long before DNS - trying to assign static addresses as DHCPv6 is an afterthought, also whole setup has to be robust somehow when the whole network prefix changes.

Sounds like a good use for Multicast DNS?

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#304

Post by mortallywounded »

cbracketdash wrote: post #70
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.

Just download the repo as a zip file and manually upload it as an extension to your browser.

Though be warned, after a restart Firefox doesn't re-enable side loaded extensions that were added in the "debug" mode.

Also, Chrome (Google) has a habit of randomly disabling or removing side loaded extensions. I even had a side loaded extension that Google forced removal of because Google deemed it contained malware (which it didn't, I know because I wrote it).

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#306

Post by apapapa »

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.

More rules equals more complexity....

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#307

Post by soupbowl »

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.

I use ULA addresses in my local dns, the global address can change, privacy addresses can cycle and my local DNS keeps working. This also guarantees that the data you are pushing locally stays local since ULAs will never be sent out of the local network.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#308

Post by soupbowl »

avhception wrote: post #165
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 still haven't figured out how to get these auto-configured addresses into my home network's DNS (or any DNS, for that matter).

It is pretty easy on OPNsense but it's virtually impossible on many other types of routers. Meraki and Asus as two examples of that.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#309

Post by ugh123 »

shzhdbi09gv8ioi wrote: post #96
ugh123 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To determine ipv4/6, do you need to send that hostname and ip off to somewhere to get a response? or can it be done locally without leaving the machine?

You can determine that by looking at the value. IPv4: 123.123.123.123 IPv6: 2001:db8::8a2e:370:7334

Oh yeah. DUH!

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#310

Post by ivlad »

apapapa wrote: post #252
mkl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pretty useless" is nonsense; Google works on IPv6, and 41% of Google's users access it via IPv6 [1]. "Most people" is also not true: most internet users use Google [2] (those not accessing it via IPv6 probably can't). [1] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...

Because you can access a website on both ipv4 and IPv6 doesn't really make IPv6 all that useful because you could disable it and still be able to access the same resource using ipv4...

By that logic, you can disable IPv4 and still access the site via IPv6.

IPv4 is useless.

Also, running dual-stacked servers I can confirm, all scans come via IPv4, so not only it is useless, it’s actually less secure to use it.

Post reply on HN