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

71–80 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#71

Post by zaphoyd »

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.

I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead!

Additionally, like a sibling comment notes, a home hobbyist has full control over at least half, often more, of their addresses and can easily choose addresses for their network that are as short or shorter and easier to remember and organize vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with much more strict subnet size rules, etc.

IPv6 is a dream for home hobbyists! The complaining from them about “unmemorable” addresses just makes no sense.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#72

Post by Kelteseth »

kortilla wrote: post #64
Kelteseth wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreeing on a common standard is not authoritarianism.

We have agreed on a common standard. It’s IPv6. Forcing people to use it is authoritarianism.

You are also forced to use a seat belt. Calling it authoritarianism when we want to enforce a standard is absurd.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#73

Post by throw0101c »

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,…

> Private networks, NAT, Carrier Grade NAT are good enough, and internet really doesn't care about being completely peer-to-peer.

CG-NAT adds a cost that not everyone can easily afford:

> 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.

> First off I despise both Apple and that other evil empire (house of mouse) I want nothing to do with either of them. Now with that said I am one of four individuals that suggested and lobbied 15 other tribal nations to offer a new AppleTV device in exchange for active ROKU devices. Other nations are facing the same dilemma. Spend an exorbitant amount of money to support a small amount of antiquated devices or replace the problem devices at fraction of the cost.

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

* "Roku devices don't support IPv6 in 2023 and it's costing ISPs", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35047624

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#74

Post by xnyan »

kalleboo wrote: post #18

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.

> The consumers are not expected to need a public address where they can be reached - having a public address is actually a security and privacy risk.

100% of consumer routers and OS level firewalls deny new inbound connections by default. There are upsides and downsides to static vs dynamic ISP-provided addresses, but the only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 in this regard is that IPv6 has a vastly larger address space and offers an ISP far more capacity to randomize a customer's host address for a far lower cost than IPv4. CGNAT is available for 4 or 6 if such is desired.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#76

Post by kjuulh »

I'd like to use ipv6, if only to avoid having to pay for an ipv4 address for some private vpcs (with public address for reasons). I remember having issues with fly.io as well, because they're ipv6 by default if I remember correctly.

Currently Denmark has worse support than I expected:

> Liste over danske udbydere (List of Danish providers)

> Internetudbydere på listen: 41 (ISPs on the list)

> Internetudbydere med fuld IPv6-understøttelse: 17 (41%) (ISPs with full IPv6)

> Internetudbydere med delvis IPv6-understøttelse: 10 (24%) (ISPs with partial IPv6)

> Internetudbydere uden IPv6-understøttelse: 14 (34%) (ISPs with no IPv6)

source: https://ipv6-adresse.dk/

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#77

Post by throw0101c »

kijin wrote: post #43
AStonesThrow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Amazon took this as an opportunity to increase prices.

IPv4 prices peaked in early 2022; AWS started charging for public IPv4 in 2024 (announced in 2023):

* https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address...

If they had increased prices in 2022 (or at least announced in 2022), then I could see some kind of correlation, but give it was 1.5-2 years after, I doubt there is a connection.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#78

Post by throw0101c »

abhinavk wrote: post #35
Animats wrote: post #20

China's IPv6 transition is 74% complete.[1] Conversion to IPv6 was specifically called out in China's 14th Five Year Plan, which gives the goal high visibility within the government and the Party. Conversion is quite far along. The current goal is everything IPv6 enabled by 2025, IPv4 turns off in 2030. 99% of the top 100 mobile applications in China are on IPv6. China Mobile's backbone is now IPv6 only. [1] https://…

India is also around 75%. Both of them cover quite a bit of humanity. The regions where growth is going to happen don't own a lot of blocks so they will focus on IPv6.

Vietnam (pop. 98M) has mandated moving to IPv6, with goals for migration between 2025 and 2030:

* https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/vietnam_digital_infra...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#80

Post by kortilla »

Kelteseth wrote: post #72
kortilla wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have agreed on a common standard. It’s IPv6. Forcing people to use it is authoritarianism.

You are also forced to use a seat belt. Calling it authoritarianism when we want to enforce a standard is absurd.

Seat belts have a reason. If I want to communicate with some computers using IPv4 or IPX, that’s my choice. Putting laws on what I can put inside of Ethernet is absolute stupidity
Post reply on HN