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

171–180 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#171

Post by Dylan16807 »

tptacek wrote: post #124
Dylan16807 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The IP consolidation is reasonably successful, but it doesn't have to break port forwarding, that's laziness and negligence.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#172

Post by numpad0 »

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…

NAT is technically not a firewall in itself, I believe early/some NAT implementations used deterministic assignments between external range to internal ip:port. They can be more transparent if that is the goal.

But the effect of proliferation of cheap Wi-Fi routers with cheap dynamic NAPTs in conjunction with UPnP did to XP-era PC security - 100% agreed, it was like sunlight self-disinfecting brass door handles.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#173

Post by Dylan16807 »

m348e912 wrote: post #149
unethical_ban wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

That's not how you're supposed to use IPv6. It would just be 64 bits if that was the case. Instead, 99% of the time, it's a 64 bit subnet ID and a 64 bit device ID.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#174

Post by lucw »

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?

IPv6 adoption will take place overnight when either google chrome, Android or iOS start showing a warning on IPv4-only networks. ISPs and tech companies will start to get flooded with support calls asking about it and will choose to roll out IPv6 to make the problem go away. Chrome forced the web to go 100% https, the same thing will happen eventually with IPv6.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#175

Post by cyberax »

IPv6 is _still_ not at the feature parity with IPv4!

I'm not kidding. For example, Android doesn't support stateful DHCPv6. And DHCPv6 doesn't have the _basic_ feature of DHCPv4: hostnames. You can't easily use it to do a quick survey of your network.

Then you have that @#&(^(&!@^ that is ULA.

With IPv4 we have a very useful pattern: you create an "internal" network that is stable and predictable. It's routed to the outside world through NAT. If the external connection goes down, the internal network is unaffected.

With IPv6 you're supposed to have ULA and the global routed addresses in parallel. So now the external connection goes down, and the router withdraws the prefix from the router advertisement. Half of the hosts lose their external addresses, but keep the ULAs. Half of the hosts don't implement prefix withdrawal, and keep both their ULAs and the normal addresses. Congrats, now these hosts can't talk to each other due to the ULA addresses being less preferred.

And of course, IPv6 hasn't improved on the PMTU. So if you're running an Internet service, you need to use something like 1400 MTU to make sure some of the misconfigured tunneled clients don't get shafted. There's now an RFC that makes it useful: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9268 , but it's Experimental and it'll need ~20 years to be deployed anyways.

IPv6, a story of recursive utter failure at all levels...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#176

Post by esaym »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #162
imoverclocked wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

CAPTCHAs are the main reason I turned IPv6 on. No idea if it will actually help in practice, it's hard to measure. The other Starlink hassle is the geocoding for user IPv4 addresses is wildly wrong. I'm in Grass Valley, CA near Sacramento but sites all think my IP is either in Seattle or Los Angeles, depending on the week. This makes streaming services a huge PITA, I have to jump through hoops to convince them I'm in…

I was on a cruise ship in the Caribbean for a week just last month and I purchased the starlink powered internet package. Looking at my IP data, location info showed that I was actually in Dallas, Texas. Very sad!

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#177

Post by tptacek »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #150
mike_d wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They had to do with computers being directly addressable, routable, and reachable by the entire Internet, which was the default prior to widespread deployment of NAT. NAT isn't the best way to do it, but it probably is the single biggest factor in reducing the external reachability of endpoint IPs.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#178

Post by hairyplanter »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #56
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 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. What did you use to implement that? I found it surprisingly difficult to find software to do NAT64 on Linux.

I use tayga.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#179

Post by Qwertious »

wmf wrote: post #161
gosub100 wrote: post #111

Pardon if this is an ignorant question, but could the "backhaul providers" help expedite v6 by simply adding a small-but-annoying tax on carrying v4 traffic? I know it sounds ridiculous to want to pay more, but it might help "rip the band-aid" off if, in order to keep costs down, ISPs had to pay a little more for the deprecated protocol.

They won't do that because of competition.

Amazon already did something similar.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#180

Post by pie_flavor »

I have IPv6 disabled on my computer because it solves many mysterious service interruptions. Comcast claims to support it, but there have been many times when IPv6 was dog slow and IPv4 was very fast.
Post reply on HN