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

The IPv6 Transition

potaroo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#21

Post by Dylan16807 »

kijin wrote: post #17
Dylan16807 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is mostly okay, but carrier grade NAT where you can't forward a port causes real problems. IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.

If it was a real problem, market pricing would reflect the increasing severity of that problem. The truth is that people who care about port forwarding are such a small minority -- especially now that P2P file sharing has lost its hype -- that they don't make a visible dent in the rate of IPv4 exhaustion.

The market price is only something like 5 or 10 dollars a month, but anyone having to pay that to be accessible is an embarrassing failure of the system. It doesn't matter whether it's a big dent in the number of IPs or not.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#22

Post by Hamuko »

kijin wrote: post #17
Dylan16807 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is mostly okay, but carrier grade NAT where you can't forward a port causes real problems. IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.

If it was a real problem, market pricing would reflect the increasing severity of that problem. The truth is that people who care about port forwarding are such a small minority -- especially now that P2P file sharing has lost its hype -- that they don't make a visible dent in the rate of IPv4 exhaustion.

Doesn't CGNAT also mess up things like Nintendo Switch online multiplayer?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#23

Post by Dylan16807 »

saurik wrote: post #15
Dylan16807 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT is mostly okay, but carrier grade NAT where you can't forward a port causes real problems. IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.

Have you tried using PCP to forward the port? I was under the (maybe-incorrect, and if so I would really like to learn) impression that most major CG-NAT setups supported it.

I suppose I can try that some time. I can find absolutely zero mentions of that for the ISP, just the option of buying a static IP.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#24

Post by kijin »

somat wrote: post #13
kijin wrote: post #7

I think the article's diagnosis is spot on. The urgency of IPv6 adoption was predicated on the assumption that every connected device, both server and client, needs a unique and stable IP address. Back when IPv6 was first discussed, you couldn't even host two HTTPS sites on the same IP/port combination! That was such a colossal waste of IP addresses. Another thing that changed on the server side was that, thanks to A…

it is unfortunate that tcp and ip are as interlocked as they are, by which I mean, there is no way to keep your tcp connection while swapping out the underlying ip addresses. This is not actually a real problem, we do just fine without it, it can be solved at higher or lower layers. But it would have been nice to have.

Yeah, it would have been nice to have, but that's all. Instead of requiring IPv6, the internet has evolved in a direction that tolerates disconnects and reduces its own IPv4 address consumption. It will probably work fine for the next 20 years at least.

In the 19th century, New Yorkers worried that the city would soon be buried in horse shit because of increasing demand for transportation. The horse shit apocalypse never materialized, because transportation evolved in a way that stopped relying on horses. Now we have a different problem, of course.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#25

Post by imaguska1 »

All big German internet providers (DTAG, Telefonica, 1&1, Vodafone) are IPv6 Dual Stack or CGNAT'ed for many many years now. Same for all mobile providers.

So everybody is using IPv6 in their home networks without problems.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#26

Post by BrandoElFollito »

hairyplanter wrote: post #10

I have fully implemented IPv6 in my home network. I have even implemented an IPv6-Only network. It fully works, including accessing IPv4 only websites like github.com via DNS64 and NAT64 at my router. The only practically useful thing about my IPv6 enabled network is that I can run globally routable services on my lan, without NAT port mapping. Of course, only if the client is also IPv6. Other than this one use case,…

I had to reluctantly deploy ipv6 on my home network because of ISP requirements + will to use pihole.

Ipv6 is hard. I had to learn quite a bit to make it work and not only I see no value, but it is significantly more difficult to use dire to the address length.

I think IPv6 is a missed opportunity, it was probably designed by experts that did not take into account the population that will use it (not the one users who do not care, but the layer above them)

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#28

Post by brnt »

Uptrenda wrote: post #12

These charts that show IPv6 adoption really don't mean shit. The thing is: every single device out there isn't being used directly by a human bean (and a real hero.) They include things like sensors, smart lights, fridges, washing machines, a huge huge number of mobile devices, company networks, ... apparently even tooth brushes? Look at another sector and the story is ((quite horrible.)) I'm talking a regular fixed…

> They include things like sensors, smart lights, fridges, washing machines,

Now you gave me an excellent reason to make my home network v6-only.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#29

Post by kijin »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #21
kijin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a real problem, market pricing would reflect the increasing severity of that problem. The truth is that people who care about port forwarding are such a small minority -- especially now that P2P file sharing has lost its hype -- that they don't make a visible dent in the rate of IPv4 exhaustion.

The market price is only something like 5 or 10 dollars a month, but anyone having to pay that to be accessible is an embarrassing failure of the system . It doesn't matter whether it's a big dent in the number of IPs or not.

There are billions of people out there who can access the internet, and make themselves accessible through the internet the way they want, just fine without a dedicated IP address.

Maybe you have a definition of "access" that is different from the usual one. That's fine, but let's be honest, it's not the usual definition.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#30

Post by Woansdei »

alexchamberlain wrote: post #16
gorgoiler wrote: post #3

> In 2024 it’s estimated that 20 billion devices use the Internet, yet the Internet’s IPv4 routing table only encompasses 3.03 billion addresses … sharing each individual IPv4 address across an average of 7 devices. …but the graph below that text shows 40% of traffic is IPv6, so the v4 space is only shared across 12e9 devices? In my experience the big holdouts these days are corporate networks. All my domestic ISPs (…

FWIW, domestic ISPs in the UK are lagging on IPv6; I'm with Vrigin Media and, afaict, there is no immediate plan to deploy it either.

Last time I called Virgin media to get from the loyal customer (extra high) rate to something closer to what new customers get they just said no.

I switched to Vodafone which is cheaper and double the speed and got me IPv6. I think it might just be Virgin sitting on a large amount of IPv4 addresses and not wanting to spend any money on supporting v6 when they can just overcharge their loyal customers.

Post reply on HN