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

221–230 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#221

Post by nlitened »

josephg wrote: post #194
Dylan16807 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What country is that where poor people can’t afford an IP address? Is it a real place?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#222

Post by megous »

unethical_ban wrote: post #156
m348e912 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Like other person said, /64 is the minimum subnet size. And submitting in ipv6 is best done 4 bits at a time. A /60 is overkill for residents, but because it gives 16 subnets, not because it gives excessive addresses.

There's no minimum subnet size.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#223

Post by nlitened »

eptcyka wrote: post #217
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.

With how trivial generating new addresses in IPv6 is, it'd be cool to have a host block all incoming traffic on its own and have each service that deserves to be reached over the listen on an address unique to the service.

> have each service that deserves to be reached over the listen on an address unique to the service

It’s already a thing. These unique per-service addresses are called “ports” in IP protocol.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#225

Post by immibis »

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.

This is a problem.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#226

Post by immibis »

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…

That's literally the ISP's and router's job: get packets from A to B.

Now, a home router should probably have a stateful firewall that's on by default, but that's a different matter.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#227

Post by immibis »

megous wrote: post #222
unethical_ban wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like other person said, /64 is the minimum subnet size. And submitting in ipv6 is best done 4 bits at a time. A /60 is overkill for residents, but because it gives 16 subnets, not because it gives excessive addresses.

There's no minimum subnet size.

/64 acts as a soft limit due to the prevalence of SLAAC. Which is good in a way, since it means ISPs have to give out at least /64, which means you're always able to subnet (although you can't use SLAAC and must use static addresses or DHCP) unlike IPv4 where you have to pay for extra addresses.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#228

Post by mrweasel »

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...

Some of the larger Danish ISP has explained that they do not offer IPv6, because there's no demand. I very much doubt that they have any demand for IPv4 either, because most people don't know and don't care how the internet is delivered to them.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#229

Post by PhilipRoman »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #88
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in fact, having a public address is actually a security and privacy risk. I strongly disagree with this. Privacy (not that it's a big deal imo) is well handled by the temporary address extension, and security is not an issue if you run a firewall. And you should be running a firewall even if you use v4, because NAT is not an acceptable security measure.

Whilst I agree with you, I rather depressingly suspect a lot of people equate NAT with “security”.

Security - not really, but to be honest CG-NAT is kind of nice for privacy. I don't have to worry about leaking a (by default) permanent identifier. Once/if I go full ipv6, I'll probably start using a VPN full time.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#230

Post by kalleboo »

Kelteseth wrote: post #47
imaguska1 wrote: post #25

All big German internet providers (DTAG, Telefonica, 1&1, Vodafone) are IPv6 Dual Stack or CGNAT'ed for many many years now. Same for all mobile providers. So everybody is using IPv6 in their home networks without problems.

Our local German teledata internet provider uses CGNAT, and it is a mess of random timeouts.

I could see that that's how IPv6 adoption happens.

ISPs realize that selling their old squatted IPv4s to Amazon/Google/Azure more than pays for the transition to IPv6 + CGNAT with a tidy profit on the side.

Then to save more money, they cheap out on the CGNAT so that IPv4 connections have poor performance.

Customers complain to the slow websites (since google/cloudflare sites all load quickly, it must be the site's fault) and they have to adopt IPv6 for that reason.

Post reply on HN