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

141–150 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#141

Post by ignoramous »

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,…

> internet really doesn't care about being completely peer-to-peer

Internet (I mean, the IETF) does care a lot about the end-to-end principle, however. It is true that "misbehaving" NATs break e2e badly. It is also true that IPv6 can also be put behind such NATs.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#142

Post by arp242 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #11
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,…

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.

The main problem I had when I was on CGNAT was not so much port forwarding (annoying, but solvable), but with being banned from all sorts of stuff. The address is shared with so many people and one person did something stupid or malicious or whatnot. Sometimes you don't even know if you're banned or not.

For better or worse, IP blocks are still very common. It's easy to complain about this, but there aren't really any good methods to deal with persistent abuse.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#143

Post by thayne »

tims33 wrote: post #110
thayne wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are serious network effects at play.IPv6 would be a lot more valuable if it was more broadly deployed.

What do you see as the key points that create a lot more value?

No longer needing NATs in many situations, especially CGNATs, ISPs could give all customers static ip addresses, and peer to peer applications wouldn't need to use unreliable workarounds like STUN to traverse NATs

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#144

Post by ndriscoll »

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?

As far as I know, the US federal government does have a mandate that agencies be ipv6-only by end of 2025. Systems that are not converted by then require justification for why they cannot do so along with a replacement plan. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-0...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#145

Post by pessimizer »

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.

Being forced to use a seat belt isn't a standard, it's actually authoritarianism. And largely used as a pretense to pull people over without probable cause, rather than for any other purpose. Mandating that manufacturers have seatbelts in cars is the regulation of commerce. Mandating that ISPs provide ip6 is also the regulation of commerce. Ip6 itself is a standard.

A standard is something that people have to adhere to in order to measure things in a portable way, or for general interop. It's not anything that one is told to do by a government.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#146

Post by mike_d »

numpad0 wrote: post #133
theamk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people assume IPv6 means "easy p2p"? Even if NAT will be gone one day, the stateful firewalls won't. Every every home router would still ship with "deny all incoming" by default, and every corporate network would have the same setting as well. Same as IPv4, IPv6 serving would still need registration with border device, either manual by user, or via UPnP-equivalent.

"everything gets a global IP, no more NAT headaches" was one of marketing talking points for IPv6. Not necessarily the case nor welcomed by everyone, but that was the intent.

Wide scale deployment of NAT (the "home router" that allowed you to connect multiple devices) was the greatest leap in internet security we ever made. I remember the days when we had "everything gets a global IP," and we do NOT want to go back to that. Look up Conficker, Code Red, Blaster, etc.

People naively assume the large IPv6 address space somehow hides your computer on the internet. That isn't true. Both because v6 host discovery is a solved-ish problem for attackers, and worms have near unlimited resources to throw at the wall.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#147

Post by imoverclocked »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #122
koyote wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hadn’t put that quite together. I wonder how many people would value IPv6 if they knew it meant less CAPTCHAs.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#148

Post by mike_d »

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://…

The IPv6 transition is a side effect of China building their own internal "internet" from the ground up that will not be connected to what we think of as the internet. "Turning off IPv4" is code for shutting off the DFZ and users only being able to reach other networks within the country.

We should absolutely not be pointing to this as a success or a model for other countries.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#149

Post by m348e912 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #59
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to reluctantly deploy ipv6 on my home network because of ISP requirements + will to use pihole. Ipv6 is hard. I had to learn quite a bit to make it work and not only I see no value, but it is significantly more difficult to use dire to the address length. I think IPv6 is a missed opportunity, it was probably designed by experts that did not take into account the population that will use it (not the one users wh…

I struggled to get IPv6 running on my home network, then had issues with DNS dual stack once I got it going, so I turned it off. That said, I think the difficulty of IPv6 is in the UI of the home routers that implement it, and a lack of sane defaults. The ISP should give every SOHO/residential customer a /60. The router of a simple IPv6 should do prefix delegation. The router should default to SLAAC for local IP addr…

>The ISP should give every SOHO/residential customer a /60.

The ISP should give every residence 295 quintillion IPv6 addresses? I know there is an abundance of ipv6 addresses but that seems like a lot of waste.

Even assigning a /96 would provide 4.3 billion ipv6 addresses (which is the same number as all ipv4 addresses in existence)

And since available ipv6 space is basically 4.3 Billion^2, assigning an ipv6 /96 would be like assigning a /32 in ipv4 terms of total ipv6 space utilization.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#150

Post by bigstrat2003 »

mike_d wrote: post #146
numpad0 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"everything gets a global IP, no more NAT headaches" was one of marketing talking points for IPv6. Not necessarily the case nor welcomed by everyone, but that was the intent.

Wide scale deployment of NAT (the "home router" that allowed you to connect multiple devices) was the greatest leap in internet security we ever made. I remember the days when we had "everything gets a global IP," and we do NOT want to go back to that. Look up Conficker, Code Red, Blaster, etc. People naively assume the large IPv6 address space somehow hides your computer on the internet. That isn't true. Both becaus…

I remember those days too. They had nothing to do with computers not being behind a NAT.
Post reply on HN