61–70 of 433 posts
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’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.
> 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 (…
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.
Forcing people to use it is authoritarianism.
> This is the same as looking at a linear trend line placed over the data series used in Figure 1, looking for the date when this trend line reaches 100%. Using a least-squares best fit for this data set from January 2020 to the present day, and using a linear trend line, we can come up with Figure 2. > This exercise predicts that we’ll see completion of this transition in late 2045, or some 20 years into the future.…
Ill bet against it. The tail on this one is going to be super long.
There are embedded systems today that are shipping in things expected to last 30 years with IPv4 only.
The logistics of the bet are going to be hard. I do see a world where IPv6-only becomes the default for ISPs and IPv4 becomes an add-on you pay for either from your ISP or from another via a tunnel. Does that world mean v4 is dead yet?
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, is IPv6 now backwards compatible with IPv4? No? I guess not a complete list of fallacies.
I can route to v4 endpoints on my v6-only network just fine. Shrugs
That’s like saying HTTP can talk to FTP servers as long as there is an HTTP to FTP proxy.
The only thing that makes them seem compatible is there is a well formed address space in v6 that clients send v4 requests to. But it’s still v6 and a 64 proxy needs to have an actual IPv4 address to translate the source to before sending it via v4 to the actual destination.
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.
Virgin neé ntl: has always been complete trash. Are they representative of UK ISPs in general? BT and Sky completed their v6 rollout years ago and they account for over half the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can route to v4 endpoints on my v6-only network just fine. Shrugs
They aren’t compatible. There is a device in the middle doing a translation for you. That’s like saying HTTP can talk to FTP servers as long as there is an HTTP to FTP proxy. The only thing that makes them seem compatible is there is a well formed address space in v6 that clients send v4 requests to. But it’s still v6 and a 64 proxy needs to have an actual IPv4 address to translate the source to before sending it via…
The usual "they should have designed it to be compatible" nonsense usually comes from the crowd with zero suggestions of how to have a 32-bit addressed device send to packets to something with an address outside its universe.
Point is that djb was as wrong then as they are now.
The internet stopped being a network of peers where everyone needed an address and is now a split into producers (a handful of large companies) and consumers (everyone else). The consumers are not expected to need a public address where they can be reached - in fact, having a public address is actually a security and privacy risk.
I strongly disagree with this. Privacy (not that it's a big deal imo) is well handled by the temporary address extension, and security is not an issue if you run a firewall. And you should be running a firewall even if you use v4, because NAT is not an acceptable security measure.