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

91–100 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#91

Post by BonoboIO »

erinaceousjones wrote: post #40
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,…

Fun reasons why my home network is still on IPv4: IPv6 drains my girlfriend's phone battery :-) Something to do with Router Advertisement intervals being too short, though I don't get why that only affects her ~5yo android phone. And IPv6 is so complex, I haven't figured out if the RA interval is something I can or should tweak, whether that comes from the PiHole or whether I'd have to flash OpenWRT on my router, or…

Never would have guessed that ipv6 could be a battery drain

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#92

Post by thayne »

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.

Yep, lots of AWS apis don't work over ipv6, and many require making requests outside the VPC, so you need to have at least one ipv4 address for a NAT.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#94

Post by electronbeam »

Hamuko wrote: post #22
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.

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

Nintendo should really enable IPv6 on the Switch to help with this

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#95

Post by growse »

zaphoyd wrote: post #71
growse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

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

Well, the non-trivial percentage of large orgs that have literally run out of RFC 1918 space would disagree.

But yes, you're right. There's a weird Stockholm syndrome thing some people have with NAT.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#96

Post by Affric »

redprince wrote: post #53
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.

That was in fact one of the promises of IPv6: Restore the network of peers where every host is in principle a server and a client and communication between peers is unhindered unless a policy is enforced saying otherwise (on the machine, on a firewall, etc.). > having a public address is actually a security and privacy risk. Services can be turned off or a firewall instructed not to pass traffic from the internet (by…

> in Germany we have the peculiar horror of getting the IPv6 address and all delegated prefixes changed on every redial.

This is oh so very German.

In normal times it is massively overkill. I have to wonder if, heaven forbid, the things these sort of German things are meant to mitigate come to pass again if they will make any difference or if they are a largely symbolic act designed to demonstrate ideological opposition to such things.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#97

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

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,…

> Grade NAT are good enough

CGNAT would cripple every customer I've ever had, going back to the beginning of broadband. Everyone one has had something on-premises that needs to be accessible. Nearly always, it's multiple things that are critical to operations.

    However. if someone wants to forever keep 100% of their accessible data in someone else's silos...

    and be forced to pay 3rd parties to access anything located on their own premises (ex:cameras) 

    then imprisonment behind CGNAT might feel 'good enough' to them.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#98

Post by growse »

nikanj wrote: post #62
growse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Serious, competent network engineers are not created in vacuum from platonic ideals and TCP fragments. They're home hobbyists who grew up hating ipv6, and won't magically learn it overnight when their previous networking guy quits and they get handed the keys to the server cage

These people are neither competent nor serious.

In the real world, people who design and operate large networks are the very same people who staffed the working groups who designed IPv6. It's their design.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#99

Post by Affric »

jonathanlydall wrote: post #49
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 hou…

Static IP here in Australia costs AUD 5 per month for residential users… I think it’s just a price signal to entirely disincentivise it to anyone who doesn’t need it.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#100

Post by candiddevmike »

jonathanlydall wrote: post #49
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 hou…

There's plenty of justification around the value of IPv6, but it will be lost on most users. But the same scenario has played out before where things that folks don't understand were enforced, like leaded to unleaded gasoline or removing CFCs.

Fastest way to get IPv6 going in the US is to mandate all government usage be IPv6 only by 20XX. Any supplier or vendor must work over IPv6. You'll see the industry fall in line very quickly, no one wants government money to be shut off.

Post reply on HN