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

41–50 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#41

Post by jeroenhd »

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…

All routers I've ever encountered have a default deny rule for IPv6, replicating the port forwarding setup people have come to expect from NAT. Except you can use multiple Xboxes in the same network now, of course.

Even the mini router I bought for 15 bucks five years ago does IPv6 addressing just fine. Just announcing a prefix (or two, local network stuff over ULAs and all that) is enough to make SLAAC do its thing. Never had any problem with DHCPv6 PD for automatic subnetting either.

I haven't looked into UPnP on IPv6 much, but the ones that did UPnP all seem to do IPv6 fine after 2015 or so. I usually turn it off because I don't want random crap manage my firewall unauthenticated (and many router manufacturers have had vulnerable implementations that would accept UPnP packets from the internet so screw that).

Brands that I've successfully used IPv6 with without any hassle include TP-Link, D-Link (don't buy from them), AVM, Mikrotik, and Netgear.

The most annoying part I find about routers is actually that they don't let you disable ALGs anymore it seems. Every few years Samy Kamkar writes up a way to bypass most IPv4 firewalls by abusing the hackery we've accumulated around NAT and the easiest fix ("let FTP/SIP/H363/PPTP be broken on IPv4") doesn't seem to come with routers anymore.

It took a while, but router manufacturers seem to have realised that the world is moving towards "CGNAT or IPv6" and not having usable IPv6 breaks networks in those cases.

The most broken IPv6 deployments I've seen were from people who tried to turn it off though weird hacks like firewall rules which subsequently got IPv6 from their ISP. Had they actually disabled IPv6 they would've just been stuck OK IPv4 like regular, but their weird hacks made half the TCP connections need to time out before they could access the internet.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#42

Post by chgs »

growse wrote: post #9
AdamH12113 wrote: post #8

I’ve often wondered if going with 64-bit addresses with a dotted quad hex notation would have eased the roll-out. I remember a lot of resistance when IPv6 was first announced along the lines of “I can’t memorize/type in giant addresses and I don’t want to have to use DHCP and DNS everywhere.” It felt like IPv6 never recovered from a bad first impression.

I'm not sure I've ever heard this view expressed by serious, competent network engineers. I have heard it a lot from the home hobbyist though, but I'm not sure how much that demographic matters in the grand scheme of things.

The vast majority of ip4 only networks are enterprise, that’s where I hear the complaints from. The people who say autoconf (dhcp etc) is bad and that dns is bad.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#43

Post by kijin »

AStonesThrow wrote: post #34
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 truth is that major cloud providers such as Amazon AWS have begun to charge [more] for static, routed IPv4 addresses. Last I checked (a few years ago, I suppose), AWS APIs were incapable of using IPv6 internally, so a VPC still needed to dual-stack it in order to use AWS cloud features. That may have changed by now.

IPv4 prices peaked during the Covid pandemic, presumably because of sudden high demand. Amazon took this as an opportunity to increase prices.

Now IPv4 prices are returning to pre-Covid long-term trends. But of course Amazon won't reflect that in their pricing table.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#44

Post by BrandoElFollito »

qwertox wrote: post #39
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

What requirement could an ISP impose on you for you to be forced to migrate the intranet to IPv6 (because of PI-hole)? You could always place a small NAT-enabled router between your ISP's device and your home network. The only problem I could see would be the lack of a (semi-)static public IPv4 address, which one could solve by renting a VPS.

My ISP is the French "Free". They provide a router that is difficult to swap with my own (it is possible, but it is way easier to switch it to a bypass mode). With this router comes a TV box that requires IPv6 to work.

When I replace DHCP/DNS with Pihole I need to account for that. While this is not a complex setup once you understand IPv6 you still need to learn it.

I work in IT so I tried to get myself to IPv6 several times but never had any reason to do so (despite self-hosting a lot and generally being a nerd). I had to do that this time and my uninformed opinion is that it could have been done so that it is much simpler for advanced users (but not yet networking experts)

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#45

Post by redprince »

Semaphor wrote: post #33
alexchamberlain wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Germany, Vodafone. They support it, so I could get v6, but chances are that that'll switch me to CGNAT for v4, so I'm not willing to risk it.

Weird that you have to do an extra step for IPv6. Other ISPs in Germany have enabled it for every customer at some point. Unless your router asks for IPv6 addresses, nothing really changes anyway. So maybe just enable IPv6 on your router and see what happens?

On a side note, there seem to be ways to get out of CGNAT when you got condemned to use it: It is sometimes an annoying source for client VPN instabilities and from what I heard, users can just ask to be switched over from DS-Lite to classic dual stack to improve application compatibility.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#46

Post by Kelteseth »

robocat wrote: post #31
Kelteseth wrote: post #2

I've mentioned this previously. Without government-mandated standards, implementation could take years. We apply this approach to numerous areas; why should IP be an exception?

A world of being told what to do was not the "dream" of freedom for the internet. If you want the government to mandate standards, vote with your feet and move to China where it has been mandated. I thought the point of the article is that perhaps IPv6 is ultimately unnecessary: worse is better? Why are we engineers so attracted to authoritarianism? The idea of just telling everyone to use the new version seems attra…

Agreeing on a common standard is not authoritarianism.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#47

Post by Kelteseth »

imaguska1 wrote: post #25

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.

Our local German teledata internet provider uses CGNAT, and it is a mess of random timeouts.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#48

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

Kelteseth wrote: post #46
robocat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world of being told what to do was not the "dream" of freedom for the internet. If you want the government to mandate standards, vote with your feet and move to China where it has been mandated. I thought the point of the article is that perhaps IPv6 is ultimately unnecessary: worse is better? Why are we engineers so attracted to authoritarianism? The idea of just telling everyone to use the new version seems attra…

Agreeing on a common standard is not authoritarianism.

Governments _mandating_ it sure is.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#49

Post by jonathanlydall »

Kelteseth wrote: post #2

I've mentioned this previously. Without government-mandated standards, implementation could take years. We apply this approach to numerous areas; why should IP be an exception?

While legislation would be way to actually make IPv6 transition happen, what is the justification for such legislation and cost it would impose on the industry?

And that is the point of this article, for most participants of the internet the benefits don’t presently justify the involved cost.

Peer to peer networking is important to rare users like me so I can do things like host a private Minecraft server from my house for my brothers and I to play on, but this is not yet a problem for me on IPv4.

Interestingly a few years back while I was moving and had no internet for a few weeks I temporarily moved the Minecraft server to my brother’s house and we discovered he was on CG NAT which was a total nonissue before then.

I sent an email to the ISP saying we wanted to expose a port and asked how to do so and they changed my brother’s account to be given a public IP no questions asked or extra costs. And I found this policy okay because probably 99.999% of internet users don’t do anything over the internet where a public IP would make any difference to their life.

I expect once enough of the internet is on IPv6 the cost benefit pendulum will swing the other way, but we're not there yet and it’s not clear when it might happpen.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#50

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

Plasmoid wrote: post #27
dfboyd wrote: post #4

https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html still as relevant as the day it was written

Time has not been kind to this article. It's basically a compete list of fallacies that people believe about ipv6.

Oh, is IPv6 now backwards compatible with IPv4? No? I guess not a complete list of fallacies.
Post reply on HN