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

181–190 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#181

Post by Dylan16807 »

kalleboo wrote: post #55
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…

What’s funny is the last consumer router I bought had the opposite problem. It had a ridiculously low limit on DHCP leases, something like 32 devices. And one time, IPv4 routing just crashed completely and I had to reboot it. Meanwhile IPv6 was always rock stable. The crash was a weird one to debug at first since so many online properties work with IPv6, at first I blamed DNS

The ISP router I had a few years ago could be crashed by visiting 42.be (which is having https issues right now but it loads 1000 tiny image tiles from 1000 IPv6 addresses)

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#182

Post by lmm »

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,…

> 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.

A couple of other practically useful things:

- You never get address collisions when connecting to someone else's VPN, or connecting to your home network via VPN from someone else's private network (if you've set that up)

- If there are two people living in your home, they can play online games against a mutual friend who doesn't live in the home without anything breaking

I think you're right that IPv6 isn't a game-changing improvement for most people. It gets rid of some annoyances, it's the obviously correct thing to do for new networks (and cheaper than setting up CGNAT), but fundamentally the pile of hacks on IPv4 is "good enough" for most use cases.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#183

Post by Vilian »

snvzz wrote: post #165
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://…

This is yet another way they're ahead relative to the US.

When you want to control and censor all internet is much easier todo that only with ipv6 and not care for ipv4, not sure if that's a "step ahead"

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#184

Post by minitoar »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #60
kijin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are billions of people out there who can access the internet, and make themselves accessible through the internet the way they want, just fine without a dedicated IP address. Maybe you have a definition of "access" that is different from the usual one. That's fine, but let's be honest, it's not the usual definition.

Someone being able to connect to their device is the definition I use. What's your definition? Being able to relay through a third party is a different thing.

Most people are totally fine relaying everything through a third party. A vanishingly small number of email users host it themselves.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#185

Post by tomjen3 »

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…

Sorry, but under no circumstances should an ISP router auto route internal computers from the network. Thats just going to expose so many internal services, most consumers wouldn't even know they were running in the first place.

If we are to have a transition to IPv6, and I am very much in favour of this, then by all means make the addresses be globally routable, but force people to select the ports and addresses to be shared in their router. Otherwise we end up with another mess ala "open wifi".

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#186

Post by SirGiggles »

tomjen3 wrote: post #185
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…

Sorry, but under no circumstances should an ISP router auto route internal computers from the network. Thats just going to expose so many internal services, most consumers wouldn't even know they were running in the first place. If we are to have a transition to IPv6, and I am very much in favour of this, then by all means make the addresses be globally routable, but force people to select the ports and addresses to…

It doesn't need to, IPv6 has unique local addresses which is are non-globally reachable; I recall those had it's own can of worms depending on deployment but it's an option for private, local addresses.

EDIT: I also understood the GP comment to be getting around the problem of long IPv6 addresses and not actually making every machine globally accessible.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#187

Post by ClassyJacket »

jiggawatts wrote: post #132
throw0101c wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vietnam (pop. 98M) has mandated moving to IPv6, with goals for migration between 2025 and 2030: * https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/vietnam_digital_infra...

Meanwhile in Australia I called my ISP to enable IPv6 and they asked me to justify why I needed it. Because "it's the Internet" and has been a standard since the year 2000 doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to bother...

What ISP is that? Name and shame. I'm Australian and want to know to avoid them.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#188

Post by matrix2003 »

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.

Why do dynamic address allocations matter? Most IPv4 consumer WAN addresses are also dynamic.

I’m asking, because I’m an advocate of having your gateway advertise a separate, stable ULA /64 in conjunction with the globally-routable dynamic /64.

This gives you a stable set of addressable LAN IPs, and you can usually ignore the dynamic globally routable IPs.

Granted this won’t work for everyone, but if dynamic global addresses are an issue, you should be requesting a plan that supports a static delegation from your ISP anyway.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#189

Post by matrix2003 »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #167
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.

I'd imagine that to be short lived. IPv6 having such a huge address spaces means the IP reputations are even more worthless than IPv4 so eventually the bots would use it too, and if the ratio of bots to real users become too high sites may refuse IPv6 traffic altogether.

It’s a little different though in that rather than an IP having a bad reputation, it’s usually a /64. That’s how I have seen IPv6 reputation managed since it’s a common network slice & NAT is not really used anymore.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#190

Post by matrix2003 »

kortilla wrote: post #61
saurik wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried using PCP to forward the port? I was under the (maybe-incorrect, and if so I would really like to learn) impression that most major CG-NAT setups supported it.

Nah, many carriers don’t support it. I’ve always had to resort to STUN

STUN also isn’t guaranteed if the router is strict. IPv6 removes a lot of these unknown and strange ways that IPv4 infrastructure can break things.
Post reply on HN