Earlier quoted context omitted.
i stand corrected, this is good news thank you
I'm curious why we need the square brackets.
To disambiguate between the IP and port numbers
Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
351–360 of 396 posts
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this was AWS doing what their top two competitors were already doing, and that for most people it’s smaller than the price hikes GCP customers have had last year and coming February 1st, I’m skeptical that anyone significant is going to make this the issue they leave over.
Moving away from the cloud is the trend. Moving between AWS and GCP will probably stay stable.
Do you have a source for that claim?
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1. Link local is like connecting to a computer by mac address. The only time you’d ever want it is if you for some ungodly reason are worried that all other addressing systems have failed, or to bootstrap said systems.
Can you recommend a good book on the subject? Especially one which includes the transitioning pitfalls. I have been living through it all and can get a little confused as to what is status quo. First I heard that SLAAC was great. Then came DHCPv6 and some complained it was an ill concieved bandaid. Now I was under the impression that link local addresses would make my day easier but not you indicate that ULAs are the…
Thew rant is justified. Link local addresses were cool at first but then people realized they were actually a really bad leak of layer 2 into layer 3 and that you need something truly layer 3 but for private networks and abstracted over link hardware. I’ve just read the RFCs and have first hand experience working with a home router mesh networking product that supports IPv6 and uses link local addresses to bootstrap the management layer.
SLAAC is still the way to go downstream, or upstream when you don’t have an ISP doing prefix delegation with DHCPv6. ISPs just want more downward control probably for money and maybe a tiny bit for legal/abuse/security reasons, so they use dhcpv6. secure neighbor discovery would probably be the non-dhcpv6 solution to having link-layer identity, would be cool if isps gave you slaac+send as an alternative to dhcpv6, but that would require average consumers to understand certificates and pki, so fat chance.
edit:
so there’s address assignment and addresses themselves. slaac and dhcpv6 are assignment mechanisms. global, ula, link-local are types of addresses. so the story isn’t really that people hopped from slaac to dhcpv6 to link-local to ula. it’s that slaac is how you configure ipv6 addresses in high trust environments and dhcpv6 came later when isps needed more control rolling things out. I actually don’t understand what problem dhcpv6 solves other than isps presumably wanting to spend less effort to work v6 into their existing systems than to write new utility that monitors their last mile segments for router solicitations and maps to customers that way. slaac is still the preferred mechanism.
then there’s the link-local to ULA transition . really it’s the site-local to ula transition. site local was the indended way to have a private network but had problems. so ot was deptecated. i think maybe before there was a ULA alternative, for link-local made sense in the scene for a hot minute, but now ULAs are here amd they are designed specifically for private site-wide addressing. so thats what is preferred for that.
slaac+ula for private home stuff
nat and dhcp are bad relics
whatever your isp supports/required to get a global prefix delegation. fun fact, you’re supposed to be handed a /48 by your isp so you can have the freedom of 65k subnets but few are so generous.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#354Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reason: IPv6 failed to fulfill its original objective.
Looks pretty successful to me. They increased the address size. People are lazy though and decided to keep v4.
Successful would be when we don't need to rely on IPv4 addresses anymore. IPv6 hasn't done anything remotely successful in this realm.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I add a specific static ip where I care (dns resolver). The machines usually give themselves a few other routable ips I guess for fun? No idea why they don’t go away.
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks pretty successful to me. They increased the address size. People are lazy though and decided to keep v4.
Successful would be when we don't need to rely on IPv4 addresses anymore. IPv6 hasn't done anything remotely successful in this realm.
I have deployed personal servers that are IPv6 only that's at least a handful of v4 addresses saved / v6 addresses used
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#358Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Successful would be when we don't need to rely on IPv4 addresses anymore. IPv6 hasn't done anything remotely successful in this realm.
I have deployed personal servers that are IPv6 only that's at least a handful of v4 addresses saved / v6 addresses used
That's great, let me know when you can use the Internet without any IPv4 addresses involved (including upstream).
Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is no nat w/o a "firewall" and yes, it will be more secure
> there is no nat w/o a "firewall" Actually, there is! People normally don't notice because NAT is usually co-located with a stateful firewall (since both need connection tracking to work, unless it's the rarer 1:1 NAT). But you can run NAT with firewall disabled, and in that case, it's possible in some cases for a device on the outside to access a device on the inside. For instance, suppose a NAT router with 192.168…
true, un-statefull nat's exist but their usefullness is limited