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

291–300 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#291

Post by growse »

pmarreck wrote: post #282
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…

The biggest design failure of IPv6 is that it was not designed to be backwards-compatible with IPv4. Technologies with established user bases need to evolve with backwards compatibility if they want to take advantage of existing network effects.

This comment shows up like clockwork.

How does a device with a 32-bit-sized addressing scheme construct an IP packet to a device with an address in a 128-bit-sized addressing scheme?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#292

Post by immibis »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #277
immibis wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/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.

The purpose of SLAAC intends to have many customers in one /64 network though.

No, just many devices.

You can DoS your whole subnet by pretending to be a billion devices. In IPv4 you can do it by occupying all the IP addresses. Therefore putting several customers on one network is a bad idea, just like in IPv4.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#293

Post by [deleted] »

koyote wrote: post #105
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 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.

[deleted]

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#294

Post by immibis »

pmarreck wrote: post #276
lucw wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice the tech giants such as Google, Apple and Microsoft will dictate adoption of technology. When Chrome starts mandating or heavily recommending IPv6, adoption will reach 99% overnight. That's what happened with https: https://www.znetlive.com/blog/google-chrome-68-mandates-http...

One can only hope. Either this or a "killer app" use-case that requires IPv6 will push it forward significantly, IMHO.

Like high-quality video calling for free?

Companies will relay your video calls for free. For now. Basically undercutting. The only way to prevent undercutting is by the government regulation.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#295

Post by immibis »

pmarreck wrote: post #278
efitz wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why was this downvoted? It’s exactly right. The reason that IPv6 is so lightly used is that it’s cheaper to use IPv4 + workarounds. I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, or making any value judgment about IPv4 vs IPv6. People and businesses don’t spend money on technology upgrades where the benefit is not measurably better than what they already have. This is just common sense; no one wants to throw awa…

> The reason that IPv6 is so lightly used is that it’s cheaper to use IPv4 + workarounds Cheaper? Hetzner and other hosts give IPv6 addresses out for free and charge extra for IPv4 addresses.

And if you want PI addresses, they exist for IPv6 only.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#296

Post by icedchai »

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…

"Auto routing" is fine, as long as there is a firewall.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#297

Post by megous »

immibis wrote: post #227
megous wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, you can't use SLAAC feature, but there's no subnetting limit in IPv6. Any subnet size works.

Writing to you from /72.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#298

Post by icedchai »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #277
immibis wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/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.

The purpose of SLAAC intends to have many customers in one /64 network though.

The purpose of SLAAC is to make it "easy" for a client to get onto the network without something like a DHCP server tracking addresses. If you set it up, it generally just works.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#299

Post by ozim »

simiones wrote: post #259
ozim wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can it be that IPv4 price now leveled off because big players are getting ready to switch to IPv6 any time and not buying up anything that is available? If GooG/FB/Amazon force IPv6 how long will it take for ISPs to switch? I think in one week where some people cannot reach GooG/FB and any ISP that was dragging his feet has implemented IPv6 by the end of the week. I expect IPv6 adoption will blow up any time now as p…

TFA is suggesting almost the exact opposite. "Servers" are moving more and more to an architecture where the service is a distributed collection of machines all over the world sharing only a DNS name; multiple servers share the same physical box, relying on TLS SNI to decide which particular content is intended. While NAT itself would be a problem, the reality is that a service no longer needs some unique IP: the sam…

SNI took the pressure a notch down. It was introduced 2012 and graph in article was showing peak of price of IP address in 2021 - where everyone was watching Netflix all day or was in video calls. SNI is not solving video streaming problem you just need more physical networking gear to handle streaming and more public IP addresses.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#300

Post by wildguyd »

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,…

You are correct that - for many common environments - IPv6 lacks a compelling case for deployment. However, that is not universally true: for those organizations closer to the core of the Internet (with corresponding larger traffic and growth rates), the premise that you can carry all the traffic through CGNAT fails (simply review communications on the nanog mailing list from organizations such as Comcast, T-mobile, ATT, Google, MSFT Azure, Amazon, Verizon, etc.) to see clear evidence of such…. IPv6 solves their IPv4 exhaustion problem and has allowed the Internet continue to grow - if you’re not seeing a similar need, then it is simply that you are not at the core of the Internet.
Post reply on HN