Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New Internet

tailscale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 315 posts

Re: The New Internet

#131

Post by throw0101d »

hnarn wrote: post #124
teddyh wrote: post #57

The eternal problem with companies like Tailscale (and Cloudflare, Google, etc. etc.) is that, by solving a problem with the modern internet which the internet should have been designed to solve by itself, like simple end-to-end secure connectivity, Tailscale becomes incentivized to keep the problem . What the internet would need is something like IPv6 with automatic encryption via IPsec, with PKI provided by DNSSEC.…

This sounds like a reasonable point, but the more I think about it, the more it sounds like digital flagellation. IPv6 was released in 1998. It had been 21 (!) years since the release of IPv6 and still what you're describing had not been implemented when Tailscale was released in 2019. Who was stopping anyone from doing it then, and who is stopping anyone from doing it now? It's easy to paint companies as bad actors,…

> Who was stopping anyone from doing it then, and who is stopping anyone from doing it now?

The folks who either (a) got in early on the IPv4 address land rush (especially the Western developed countries), or (b) with buckets of money who buy addresses.

If you're India, there probably weren't enough IPv4 address in the first place to handle your population, so you're doing IPv6:

* https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

Or even if you're in the West, if you're poor (a community Native American ISP):

> We learned a very expensive lesson. 71% of the IPv4 traffic we were supporting was from ROKU devices. 9% coming from DishNetwork & DirectTV satellite tuners, 11% from HomeSecurity cameras and systems, and remaining 9% we replaced extremely outdated Point of Sale(POS) equipment. So we cut ROKU some slack three years ago by spending a little over $300k just to support their devices.

* https://community.roku.com/t5/Features-settings-updates/It-s...

* Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624

IPv4 'wasn't a problem' because the megacorps who generally run things where I'm guessing you're from (the West) were able to solve it in other means… until they can't. T-Mobile US has 120M and a few years ago it turns out that money couldn't solve IPv4-only anymore so they went to IPv6:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGbxCKAqNUE

IPv6 is not taking off because IPv4 (and NAT/STUN/TURN) is 'better', but rather because (a) inertial, and (b) it 'works' (with enough kludges thrown at it).

Re: The New Internet

#132

Post by throw0101d »

viraptor wrote: post #113
lockywolf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Double NAT is now almost everywhere in the world, except maybe USA.

What kind of Nat though? You can use upnp, predictable mapping, etc. and still allow the traffic through. And that's only with ipv4, because you can run zerotier over IPv6.

> What kind of Nat though? You can use upnp, predictable mapping, etc. and still allow the traffic through.

Your computer can talk to your home router (CPE) and punch a hole for a connection, but if your WAN port does not have a public IP address, but rather itself also has a private address (probably 100.64/10), the CPE cannot talk to the ISP's router to punch a hole:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

The two layers of NAT (home network (192.168) -> CPE NAT (100.64/10) -> ISP NAT ('real' public IPv4)) prevent hole punching.

Re: The New Internet

#133

Post by throw0101d »

throwaway290 wrote: post #125
smolder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at how the early 90s Ford Tempo resale value compared to Toyotas of the era. Trash cars don't keep their value. Toyota could then charge a premium because they were known for quality.

is resale value what the manufacturer wants? I mean they want to sell new cars after all...

> is resale value what the manufacturer wants? I mean they want to sell new cars after all...

They have a higher resale value because they have a reputation of lasting a long time, and people are thus perhaps more willing to pay a higher initial purchase price because they know their "investment" will last longer.

And while they may not be planing to sell their car after only a few years, knowing that they'll get back more of their "investment" is also probably sitting in the back of their mind ('just in case').

Re: The New Internet

#134

Post by linsomniac »

figassis wrote: post #9

I love Tailscale, but this post gives me the creeps. The internet succeeded because it was built on standards and was completely free. With Tailscale, I get wireguard is open source and we have things like Headscale. But the whole everyone gets an IP, doesn’t it depend on Tailscale owning a massive ip address space? We can all wait until full ipv6 rollout, or we can depend on centralized ipv4, and servers and proprie…

>But the whole everyone gets an IP, doesn’t it depend on Tailscale owning a massive ip address space?

No, because Tailscale isn't "the Internet", it is a bunch of disconnected moats. The IP space needed by Tailscale only has to be as big as the largest moat. And you can only be connected to a single moat at a time.

Re: The New Internet

#135

Post by Borg3 »

growse wrote: post #116
Borg3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because IPv6 is mistake. Thats why market does NOT want it. Unfortunately, we all start to feel the heat of IPv4 exhaustion. Anyway, remember IPv4 classes? Then they made it classless. IPv6 is not 128bit, its just 64bit with 64bit host address. So, first mistake. IPsec mandatory? pure stupidity. Crypto moves fast, every 10 years many protocols are obsoleted. How you will provide E2E connectivity with that? In 1997 IP…

> What IPng team should do, is just take IPv4, extended it to 64bit, call it IPv6 and we are done. Tell me you've never had to seriously design and operate networks at scale without telling me etc... This is a bit like Chesterton's fence - until you understand why (for example) ARP is a hilariously bad design and a major problem when trying to design networks at scale, then you can't understand why someone might want…

Its not so easy. First, yeah I was operating networks, not maybe hyperscalers, but 200+ switches. Yes, ARP had a its problems, like ARP poisoning, but they are all sorted out already. IPv6 took its ND and bring a lot of other problems that we are solving AGAIN. Pure waste of time and effort.

Also, please cut the crap about IoT and Hyper IP networks centrally managed. Thats just serveral huge corporations. Majority is Internet is small/medium shops doing it completly different. Yet, big boys pop in and say you do it wrong, you must do it our way or go away. Not nice.

Yeah, that motivation become overengineering. They provided protocol that does NOT fit the needs it seems.

IPv6 will probably happen indeed. I doubt someone will popin with great protocol that will make IP obsolete.

Also, I wish IPv6 would really took off, because even if I personaly dont like IPv6, it success would provide me IPv4 address space for my retro networking projects.

Re: The New Internet

#136

Post by _heimdall »

throwaway290 wrote: post #125
smolder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at how the early 90s Ford Tempo resale value compared to Toyotas of the era. Trash cars don't keep their value. Toyota could then charge a premium because they were known for quality.

is resale value what the manufacturer wants? I mean they want to sell new cars after all...

Resale values do have an impact on new car prices. The better a vehicle holds its value the easier it is for the company to charge more for a new car.

Its also worth considering that, for better or worse, very few people actually own their cars today. When you have a loan on it the resale value becomes really important. If the manufacturer wants the kind of customer that buys a new car every few years they'll need resale value that at least keeps up with the principle on the loan over that time.

Re: The New Internet

#137

Post by tomjen3 »

teddyh wrote: post #57

The eternal problem with companies like Tailscale (and Cloudflare, Google, etc. etc.) is that, by solving a problem with the modern internet which the internet should have been designed to solve by itself, like simple end-to-end secure connectivity, Tailscale becomes incentivized to keep the problem . What the internet would need is something like IPv6 with automatic encryption via IPsec, with PKI provided by DNSSEC.…

I think that is excessively negative take. Tailscales value proposition is also "you can connect to your network wherever you are, safely, and others cannot". That does not go away because of IPsec.

Re: The New Internet

#138

Post by jpeeler »

Did anyone else immediately do the calculation of 8.1 billion (world population 2024) * 1/20000 = 405k user base? Which makes me wonder what percentage are paying users.

Re: The New Internet

#139

Post by viraptor »

throw0101d wrote: post #132
viraptor wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of Nat though? You can use upnp, predictable mapping, etc. and still allow the traffic through. And that's only with ipv4, because you can run zerotier over IPv6.

> What kind of Nat though? You can use upnp, predictable mapping, etc. and still allow the traffic through. Your computer can talk to your home router (CPE) and punch a hole for a connection, but if your WAN port does not have a public IP address, but rather itself also has a private address (probably 100.64/10), the CPE cannot talk to the ISP's router to punch a hole: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NA…

Double Nat on one side is not that universal. Across Europe and Australia I've seen it maybe once on a residential connection. I'm sure it's used, but the comment about the US in the post above just doesn't match my experience.
Post reply on HN