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

81–90 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#81

Post by throw0101c »

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.

> 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.

Multipath/homing, with different IP addresses, exists with TCP and SCTP:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipath_TCP

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Pr...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#82

Post by throw0101c »

kortilla wrote: post #67
growse wrote: post #54

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…

> They aren’t compatible. There is a device in the middle doing a translation for you.

Which was true of all the IPng candidates, and not just the one that ended up being chosen for "IPv6".

There is no way to expand the addresses space (as found in IPv4) to something greater that 32-bits in a compatible: new API calls, data structures, DNS records, etc, were always going to be needed.

To list "not compatible" as a con of IPng/IPv4 is non-sensical.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#83

Post by throw0101c »

jeroenhd wrote: post #41
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.…

> I haven't looked into UPnP on IPv6 much

Added as an appendix in 2011:

* https://upnp.org/specs/arch/UPnP-arch-DeviceArchitecture-v1....

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#84

Post by commandersaki »

kstrauser wrote: post #75
dfboyd wrote: post #4

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

Which is to say, not.

DJB point about the magic moment makes sense to me. What is the point of a separate network that has 33% adoption? It has virtually no impact to alleviate IP address exhaustion, and therefore there is no incentive.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#85

Post by xnyan »

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.

This seems like an extremely broad statement. You probably don't think all use of force is authoritarian, or not allowing any and all protocols to be used on the internet is force. Maybe, but not necessarily. Why specifically would retiring IPv4 be authoritarianism?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#86

Post by Latty »

gorgoiler wrote: post #38
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.

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.

When I was in Cambridge Virgin Media used to throttle to dial-up speeds at peak times. Meanwhile, I was still getting advertising leaflets from them through the door trying to sign new people up. Active fraud selling people a service you know you can't provide, and had no timeline to fix.

On the upside, a lot of the UK is getting small fibre companies rolling out 1G symmetric lines all over the place now. I've got that in my new place and it's been great (IPv6, CGNAT IPv4 by default but you can pay £5 for a static IPv4 too).

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#87

Post by toast0 »

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.

MPTCP addresses this, Apple uses it (or used it, I haven't looked in a long time), and there's some way to enable it for applications on their OSes, but you also need to make it work on a server OS... I don't think it's been merged into anything but patches are around.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#88

Post by FridgeSeal »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #70
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.

> 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.

Whilst I agree with you, I rather depressingly suspect a lot of people equate NAT with “security”.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#89

Post by dopylitty »

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…

> Another thing that changed on the server side was that, thanks to AWS and the like, it became trivial to set up a massive private network. Nowadays you can have a cluster of thousands of virtual machines that communicate with one another entirely within a VPC. Only machines that need to communicate with external entities get a public IPv4 address. This kind of setup not only frees up a /20, but also has the benefit of being more secure.

This is something that people who are too deep in the weeds of legacy networking don't realize. The future is to not use IP at all within enterprise and not use the Internet at all for B2B communication. In fact the future is to not use any networking abstraction at the application layer.

To start with every device can be in VPCs with the same private /16 because they can easily communicate securely within the cloud environment via services like VPC lattice or using S3/API gateway both within and across companies. Let the cloud provider handle the undifferentiated heavy lifting of figuring out how to get data from one device to another. In time third parties will establish cross provider bridges.

Then you can start to ask yourself why your applications need the "networking" abstraction at all. If you want to send some bits to an application either within or across companies it should be just a matter of putting the bits in some location the receiving application has access to and the cloud providers can figure out how to actually make the bits accessible to the other application. Think writing to an S3 bucket using a VPC endpoint but with less HTTP/TCP/IP cruft in the middle.

As a benefit the identities on both sides will be established by the cloud providers so you don't need to worry your devices are reachable by malicious actors. Then you can start to get rid of all this cyber security nonsense that has grown up around the ridiculously insecure protocols that were developed in the 70s for connecting trusted machines and somehow are still in use today.

Internet service providers and cloud providers may or may not use IPv6 but enterprises, schools, and end users certainly won't need to.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#90

Post by uobytx2 »

People posting have mentioned that IPv4 is working for what they use the internet for. But of course it is. When NATs has been required for your whole life, how could the internet have built features that needed p2p routing? Just convince businesses to build something that requires special router configuration? And still wouldn’t work on phones or with ISPs that require CG NAT? You got what worked out of the box. You obviously couldn’t use what didn’t exist.
Post reply on HN