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

201–210 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#201

Post by beeflet »

jonathanlydall wrote: post #49
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?

While legislation would be way to actually make IPv6 transition happen, what is the justification for such legislation and cost it would impose on the industry? And that is the point of this article, for most participants of the internet the benefits don’t presently justify the involved cost. Peer to peer networking is important to rare users like me so I can do things like host a private Minecraft server from my hou…

>Peer to peer networking is important to rare users like me so I can do things like host a private Minecraft server from my house for my brothers and I to play on, but this is not yet a problem for me on IPv4.

It's a problem for me now on IPV4

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#203

Post by beeflet »

tptacek wrote: post #200
beeflet wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why does it have to be such a big ordeal? A blog is pretty much just a static site.

Is it unimaginable that someone uses a HTML editor like microsoft word or something to write a blog and then copies it into the folder of a static web server? I'm sure it would be way simpler if people had the time to figure out P2P and the associated UI, it's not fundamentally super complicated versus client-server.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#204

Post by unethical_ban »

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…

I didn't think I suggested an open firewall.

Just as today people have to adjust NAT as kind of an implicit inbound policy, a proper home IPv6 router defaults to drop for inbound traffic.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#205

Post by ktosobcy »

lmm wrote: post #182
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 t…

so for anyone that "just browses the web" (which is overwhelming majority) there is virtually no difference/benefit?

I don't play online games, don't use VPN, have a couple of services on my local RPi that has port forwarded on router and that's it...

ipv6 could be handy when testing some service on my laptop and trying with external services but this happens so rarely that it's not an issue... on the flipside, whenever I enable ipv6 I usually run into problems :|

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#206

Post by atoav »

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 work in media technology, and the amount of equipment in that field (think: room control systems, touch panels, projectors, media players, remote controled power switches) that does only support IPv4 is staggering.

As it might be wise to banish those devices into an isolated net anyways that might not matter too much — but a transition to IPv6-only has many places where hard- and software is the blocking factor.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#207

Post by cyberax »

matrix2003 wrote: post #191
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?

If two hosts have both mutually accessible ULA and GUA addresses, they will prefer _GUAs_ to talk to each other. So the connection will be susceptible to the prefix withdrawal if the upstream goes down (BTW, IPv6 did nothing sane for multihoming either).

> Are you taking about mDNS still referencing the withdrawn prefix?

That too.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#208

Post by cyberax »

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,…

> It doesn't work from most hotels

Most? I have not seen a _single_ hotel that supported IPv6. Not one. And I always check, just for fun.

I've been to one hotel (in Menlo Park) that used to give out public IPv4 addresses automatically, and several hotels (The Venetian, Bellagio) where you could request a public IPv4 as needed.

BTW, I'm also looking for a SIP provider that supports IPv6. So far I haven't found any in the US.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#209

Post by IcePic »

minitoar wrote: post #184
Dylan16807 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But is it "well off people not having a problem paying a buck or two directly or indirectly to an american corporation to be able to bounce traffic" which you refer to as "most people"? I can see how a few billion other people would have problems with that concept for many reasons apart from the obvious financial one.

And for everyone that does pay this "internet tax", it only strengthens the position of said corporations to be able to buy up even more of the available routable ips. It's not hard to see that the end result is very much not in the consumers favor, regardless of how unnecessary it feels for customers currently to have a real ip when all they want is kitten animations on social media.

Post reply on HN