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

121–130 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#121

Post by akira2501 »

tptacek wrote: post #115

The original “end-to-end” architecture of the Internet assumed that every device was uniquely addressed with its own IP address [...] That may indeed have been an assumption of the original architecture, but it's orthogonal to the end-to-end argument in Internet design, which is about moving logic out of the network entirely and into applications (more precisely, about recognizing that the boundary between network an…

Isn't the encoded assumption here is that clients rarely act as servers? This may be either because that's outside the typical use case or because providers explicitly do not want them to, but this factor is the reason CGNAT can be viewed as "effective."

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#122

Post by NelsonMinar »

koyote wrote: post #105
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,…

I recently moved to a 'cheap' ISP because I could get double the speed for half the price. They use CG-NAT and it's been awful. I don't need to forward any ports but seemingly because I share an IP with a billion people I get Captchas everywhere (Google, Cloudflare etc.). I was even blocked from accessing Reddit without an account at some point.

Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites.

They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#123

Post by tptacek »

uobytx2 wrote: post #90

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…

I can do more with the Internet today than I could with a static /22 assigned over my ISDN BRI back in the mid-1990s. A lot of things I would do back then, I would do differently today; running a chat system by connecting directly out to 6667/tcp feels pretty silly now, for instance. It's rough to build protocols that work that way today, but you're not missing much. Things were not better before the advent of presumptive NAT.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#124

Post by tptacek »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #21
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 market price is only something like 5 or 10 dollars a month, but anyone having to pay that to be accessible is an embarrassing failure of the system . It doesn't matter whether it's a big dent in the number of IPs or not.

Almost nobody (far, far less than 1% of users overall) do pay this; the system is in this regard smashingly successful by econometric standards.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#125

Post by kiwijamo »

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…

I have an Android on my IPv6 network with no issues, and this is across several different router vendors with different defaults for RAs. Maybe it's not an IPv6 issue and you're barking up the wrong tree?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#126

Post by tptacek »

akira2501 wrote: post #121
tptacek wrote: post #115

The original “end-to-end” architecture of the Internet assumed that every device was uniquely addressed with its own IP address [...] That may indeed have been an assumption of the original architecture, but it's orthogonal to the end-to-end argument in Internet design, which is about moving logic out of the network entirely and into applications (more precisely, about recognizing that the boundary between network an…

Isn't the encoded assumption here is that clients rarely act as servers? This may be either because that's outside the typical use case or because providers explicitly do not want them to, but this factor is the reason CGNAT can be viewed as "effective."

End-user retail endpoints can still act as servers, but the way you have them to that in 2024 is different (and yes, more complicated) than it was in 1996.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#127

Post by zamadatix »

commandersaki wrote: post #84
kstrauser wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The vast majority of that ~%40 of internet traffic is in direct disagreement with said prophecy though. Mobile carriers like T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, Telstra, Deutsch Telekom, Orange, (...you get the idea) all used pure IPv6 backbones with NAT64 edges to role out mobile telecommunications without needing double/CG-NAT or boatloads of public IPv4. Each connection made via IPv6 is transparently 1 less NAT session out a public v4 address and the IPv6 design greatly optimized the way the mobile network cores were built out. This is what has driven the growth of IPv6 on the internet (as more users switch to mobile) rather than an explosion of wireline and business users making the switch.

Where pressure is still lacking is in "small" enterprise type case (like most businesses, regional health systems, local government facilities, and so on) where the difference isn't really that much vs networks with 100 million or more clients riding). Only when corps get to the size of e.g. Microsoft do they really start seeing similar value at the moment. Everyone else can scrape by just getting that small bit of IPv4 and forgetting about it for now.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#128

Post by blueflow »

growse wrote: post #95
zaphoyd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, companies run out of RFC 1918 addresses, but no, they will continue to use public ranges for their internal networks.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#129

Post by kiwijamo »

Affric wrote: post #96
redprince wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opposit…

This seem to be common. My RSP (ISP) only offers a fixed IPv6 address/prefix on request -- otherwise they will just allocate one out of their pool as they do for dynamic IPv4 (although both dynamic IPv4 and IPv6 is fairly sticky so normally DHCP/PPPoE connections will get the same address previously used as long as it hasn't been reallocated). I personally have a static IPv4 address and a static IPv4 address/prefix from my RSP for my home network.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#130

Post by thayne »

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…

The government has more levers to pull than just a mandate requiring adoption.

For example:

- require support for ipv6 in order to qualify for government grants to ISPs to build or expand

- Require ipv6 support from any SaaS sold to the government

- require government websites to be served on ipv6, possibly exclusively on ipv6 by a certain deadline, although that might be too aggressive.

- grant tax exemptions on costs to upgrade equipment to support ipv6

- levy a tax on ipv4

None of those removes your freedom to use ipv4, they just provide incentives to use ipv6.

Post reply on HN