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

191–200 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#191

Post by matrix2003 »

cyberax wrote: post #175

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 th…

> Congrats, now these hosts can't talk to each other due to the ULA addresses being less preferred.

What do you mean by this? Are you taking about mDNS still referencing the withdrawn prefix?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#192

Post by jiggawatts »

stephen_g wrote: post #154
jiggawatts wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If it's NBN, Aussie Broadband and Superloop/Exetel have good IPv6 support with prefix delegation giving you a /56.

I'm on Aussie Broadband, but the building is with OptiComm -- a company that decided that their business model is lock-in contracts with the apartment builders and price-gouging of customers.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#193

Post by jiggawatts »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #187
jiggawatts wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OptiComm

You can't avoid them because they're not a retail telco, they provide wholesale/bulk services to apartment buildings with 15-year lock in contracts.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#194

Post by josephg »

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.

> IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.

Well, its only really a problem if you're poor. Rich people don't care - IPs are still cheap enough when you live in a wealthy country & have a decent job.

The people affected by IP address exhaustion are largely the exact set of people who can't do anything about it.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#195

Post by rswail »

stephen_g wrote: post #154
jiggawatts wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If it's NBN, Aussie Broadband and Superloop/Exetel have good IPv6 support with prefix delegation giving you a /56.

Yup, I have a /56 delegated. Now if I only had something at home that needs to be world accessible...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#196

Post by rendaw »

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,…

My anecdote with an ipv6-only home network (linux router):

Doing NAT64 runs into MTU issues and the behavior I observed is chrome would resend the request but only after 30s, firefox and other programs entirely failed to resend requests that were rejected due to MTU issues. Once I got the rejection, retrying in firefox or whatever would work though, so it seems like the path MTU was cached somewhere at the OS level. Reducing MTU manually seemed to fix the problem, but isn't that supposed to be automatic? Why didn't the kernel do the resends?

Old iPads, Androids just don't work, I'm not sure why. My iPhone 11 would connect to the network but declare itself disconnected after 24h or so (some lease or dns expiry which it doesn't renew?).

Steam hardcodes an ipv4 address for login... !! I'm not sure what to make of that, and the fact that it was reported around 10 years ago and they still haven't fixed it. Is it even using TLS?

I needed to make docker dev containers use host networking, because otherwise they'd get ipv4 addresses and try to do ipv4 traffic which couldn't be tunneled by default over ipv6.

Other than that it basically worked.

There's fundamentally only two different ways ipv6 can be configured from an ISP: SLAAC with no delegation, so you essentially share a network with other customers, or DHCPv6 delegation. Unlike IPv4 which has a million different offerings: PPPoE, DSLite, MAP-E, DHCP, etc etc and many of those aren't supported by linux.

I signed up with an ISP that claimed to support NAT64 (Biglobe) but they only support it on their SLAAC ipv6 + PPPoE ipv4 setup, not on their DHCPv6 PD + MAP-E setup, so I had to switch back to SLAAC. At this point in time the NAT64 support seems to be have been a lie... But anyways, to control my network DNS settings despite that I made a program to rewrite RA (and various other packets) with my own DNS server information.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#197

Post by beeflet »

tptacek wrote: post #123
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 presum…

p2p was simpler. The NAT epidemic has totally suffocated P2P because no one can host anything anymore.

You can't trivially host your own blog, for example, without going to your ISP and requesting a static address, and then configuring port forwarding. This is why everyone got stuck on social media, because they need someone else to run their website essentially.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#198

Post by AStonesThrow »

My ISP has given me a quite stable /64 network that's lasted for months and months.

I am curious though: my IPv6 network begins with 2600::, which I feel is not an accident or mere coincidence. For a long time, Facebook would never "trust" my device, and I suspected it was because of the IPv6 thing.

Now, "2600" is actually a hex number and doesn't mean 2600 decimal, but 2600 is an interesting prefix for a stable address. Could it mean that my ISP has permanently branded me as some sort of "hacker", and "2600" is network admin code for "please don't trust these devices"?

We should compare notes and see if other HN users have come up with stable prefixes like this, or different prefixes that aren't "2600".

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#199

Post by beeflet »

Vilian wrote: post #183
snvzz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

IPV4 internet is so broken in terms of surveillance you might as well just get a satellite uplink or some sort of out-of-band channel if you're in china.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#200

Post by tptacek »

beeflet wrote: post #197
tptacek wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 presum…

p2p was simpler. The NAT epidemic has totally suffocated P2P because no one can host anything anymore. You can't trivially host your own blog, for example, without going to your ISP and requesting a static address, and then configuring port forwarding. This is why everyone got stuck on social media, because they need someone else to run their website essentially.

That's a retcon. People used Blogger because it was more convenient than setting up Apache and PHP on a webserver of their own. Linux nerds for whom doing that is no big deal are an infinitesimal fraction of everyone who blogged.
Post reply on HN