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

301–310 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#301

Post by Peteragain »

dopylitty wrote: post #155

I gotta say don't sleep on this article thinking it's just another article about IPv6 adoption stats. There's a lot of interesting thought in the second half about what the Internet fundamentally is and where it's going. The author argues that the use of TLS and SNI has fundamentally changed the internet from a number based routing network to a network based on DNS names and SNI where the numbers involved don't reall…

Yes, I read the article as well!

I'd still love to have a dedicated IP address associated to the house so I didn't need a contract to dish up a blog & photos for my 3 friends. I'm sure P2P would make it much harder to extract money from people.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#302

Post by cls59 »

vaylian wrote: post #6

GitHub is still not accessible on the IPv6-only internet: https://isgithubipv6.live/

Yup. GitHub alone killed my last effort to go all-in on IPv6 for my personal cloud.

Sure, I could have hacked my way through it. But, that was more work than just paying the extra few cents a month for IPv4.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#303

Post by wildguyd »

7bit wrote: post #258
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,…

> Other than this one use case, IPv6 does nothing for me. IPv6 was not created for you, but it benefits you. NAT is computationally expensive and it does have a real impact for large organizations with thousands and tens of thousands of devices. Such as large universities or you know ISPs.

This statement above is the point…. Your networking requirements are quite modest compared to those whom IPv6 is essential.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#304

Post by unethical_ban »

megous wrote: post #297
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.

Yes, you can't use SLAAC feature, but there's no subnetting limit in IPv6. Any subnet size works. Writing to you from /72.

You're technically correct, but ISPs best practice is to hand out a /64.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#305

Post by ta1243 »

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…

ULA address clashes are possible, but yes it's highly unlikely

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#306

Post by iso8859-1 »

xvilka wrote: post #235
skywhopper wrote: post #113

The premise is completely wrong here. IPv6 is not just an “incremental change” that would have represented an easy uptake. Instead, pretty much every practical detail of existing IPv4 infrastructure, both hardware and software, was broken. Massive swaths of extra management and security tools were rendered useless. It was a massive miscalculation. In the meantime, we figured out how to make things work without the ex…

NAT doesn't ever provide security, only pretending to.

Why is there a difference in captcha exposure between IPv4 and IPv6 then? Maybe there is no actual security, but the people deploying these captchas seem to think there is a need to deploy them for IPv6 users.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#307

Post by josephg »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #287
josephg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, IPv4 only has 3.03 billion unique, routable addresses. The world population is 8.2 billion. So there's only enough IPv4 addresses for 1 unique address per 3 people on the planet. But of course, in reality, huge swathes of the IP address range are held by big companies (like amazon), universities and the US military. Its very common for whole streets or neighbourhoods to collectively share a single I…

In reality an IP address costs about $2 a month at market rates.

So? Is your argument that it’s so cheap that everyone should get an IP? That would be mathematically impossible.

If more people wanted an IP, the price would just rise. The same percentage of people (less than 1/3) would have one. They would just pay more.

It’s like buying land in a city like SF. Demand can change the price, but the supply remains the same.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#308

Post by ta1243 »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #287
josephg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, IPv4 only has 3.03 billion unique, routable addresses. The world population is 8.2 billion. So there's only enough IPv4 addresses for 1 unique address per 3 people on the planet. But of course, in reality, huge swathes of the IP address range are held by big companies (like amazon), universities and the US military. Its very common for whole streets or neighbourhoods to collectively share a single I…

In reality an IP address costs about $2 a month at market rates.

Because of two technologies

1) CG-NAT

2) IPv6

You literally can not have one unique IPv4 address per mobile phone.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#309

Post by ta1243 »

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

AWS is seeing growth rates reduce and needs to pump up their revenue.

They're moving onto the "squeeze" part of the cycle.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#310

Post by GoblinSlayer »

icedchai wrote: post #298
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Previously it worked by putting the MAC address in the last 64 bits.
Post reply on HN