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

261–270 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#261

Post by bluGill »

beeflet wrote: post #203
tptacek wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is complex is ongoing work. You have to watch for and apply security patches forever.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#262

Post by eptcyka »

nlitened wrote: post #223
eptcyka wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hosting service A shouldn't mean that every user of service A can also figure out you host C, B and D.

Also, the IP protocol does not care about ports at all. Ports are a thing for UDP and TCP.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#263

Post by tecleandor »

mike_d wrote: post #148
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://…

The IPv6 transition is a side effect of China building their own internal "internet" from the ground up that will not be connected to what we think of as the internet. "Turning off IPv4" is code for shutting off the DFZ and users only being able to reach other networks within the country. We should absolutely not be pointing to this as a success or a model for other countries.

I don't think they need IPv6 to cut off everyone from the internet (if that were their plan). They can do the same with just IPv4.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#264

Post by iam-TJ »

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.

I've been using Starlink since early 2021 with IPv6 only internally. Starlink User Terminal hands out a /56 prefix (via DHCPv6) and mine has not changed in all that time so I wouldn't call it dynamic.

The User Terminal issues a router advertisement (RA) and my gateway gives itself an address in that /64 via SLAAC in addition to assigning itself an address from the /56 prefix.

If not using prefix delegation each host's address is dependent on their SLAAC policy - if not preferring stable addresses (e.g: EUI64) then of course the public address will vary (be dynamic) when using temporary "privacy" addresses.

My gateway delegates /60 sub-prefixes of the /56 and bare-metal hosts then either delegates /62 or advertises /64s from the /60 to VMs, containers, network namespaces and so forth.

As someone else described, I have my gateway also delegate ULA prefixes by changing just the first two octets of the public delegated prefix to fddc (fd = ULA, dc = "data center :) but otherwise identical and likewise on the bare-metal hosts, etc.

ULA is used for internal services; ISP delegated prefix for anything that needs public access.

Multicast-DNS takes care of internal hostnames; everything is ${hostname}.local

There's a separate VLAN for legacy IPv4-only devices that does NAT64 using a ULA prefix.

DNS64/NAT64 for the laggards like github.com that can't grok 128 bit addresses :)

The only time I have problems with web services is when their DNS advertises an AAAA resource record but their firewall/load-balancers/servers are not configured to allow/listen on it.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#265

Post by GoblinSlayer »

arp242 wrote: post #142
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.

The main problem I had when I was on CGNAT was not so much port forwarding (annoying, but solvable), but with being banned from all sorts of stuff. The address is shared with so many people and one person did something stupid or malicious or whatnot. Sometimes you don't even know if you're banned or not. For better or worse, IP blocks are still very common. It's easy to complain about this, but there aren't really an…

CGNAT is a small tor.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#266

Post by throw0101c »

bluGill wrote: post #257
throw0101c wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon took this as an opportunity to increase prices. IPv4 prices peaked in early 2022; AWS started charging for public IPv4 in 2024 (announced in 2023): * https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-aws-public-ipv4-address... If they had increased prices in 2022 (or at least announced in 2022), then I could see some kind of correlation, but give it was 1.5-2 years after, I doubt there is a connection.

i would expect aws needs a year or two from when they decide to charge for something new just to work out the details

> i would expect aws needs a year or two from when they decide to charge for something new just to work out the details

The price had already dropped, and was continuing to fall, when they announced the change, so if rising acquisition cost was the primary reason for adding the IPv4 charge, it had already went away.

I think AWS has looked at a utilization graph and sees a time their current pool is get used up at current rates and doesn't want to go through the hassle of acquiring more IPv4 addresses, regardless of cost (even if it is "cheap").

I also think that they have statistic for their www.Amazon.com storefront, and maybe are seeing a good proportion from IPv6 and so figure that there's a 'critical mass' (especially mobile).

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#267

Post by tcfhgj »

tptacek wrote: post #212
beeflet wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just the idea of having an always-on computer anywhere in your home excludes probably more than 80% of everyone who has ever written a blog. IPv4 is not why people use hosted services.

> Just the idea of having an always-on computer anywhere in your home excludes probably more than 80% of everyone who has ever written a blog.

I have yet to meet someone who turns off the router at night, although I have heard of such people.

Then if you think about it, TVs, washing machines, etc. people are too lazy to turn them off, and OLED TVs even require being turned on while not being used.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#268

Post by blueflow »

elcritch wrote: post #232
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…

> dhcpv6 Just skip DHCPV6, just use SLAAC. Plus I've never seen DHCP hostnames work. Now I just ping ff02::1 multicast to see what devices are on my network. Unfortunately much software makes it a pain to use link-local addresses but they're really convenient as they normally don't change across networks. > Half of the hosts don't implement prefix withdrawal, and keep both their ULAs and the normal addresses. Congrat…

> ping ff02::1 multicast

Wasn't this disabled for IPv4 for being a security concern? See the Linux net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts sysctl.

I wonder if this will stay enabled for IPv6.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#269

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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 this third party isn't free service even if it runs on ip6.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#270

Post by bluGill »

throw0101c wrote: post #266
bluGill wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would expect aws needs a year or two from when they decide to charge for something new just to work out the details

> i would expect aws needs a year or two from when they decide to charge for something new just to work out the details The price had already dropped, and was continuing to fall, when they announced the change, so if rising acquisition cost was the primary reason for adding the IPv4 charge, it had already went away. I think AWS has looked at a utilization graph and sees a time their current pool is get used up at cur…

There is a lot of lag in decisions like this so price falling isn't enough to say anything.
Post reply on HN