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

321–330 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#321

Post by nlitened »

josephg wrote: post #234
nlitened wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

What you're saying is similar to "there's limited amount of SWIFT codes", not enough for each person on earth, so each person cannot have their own bank to receive money transfers.

True, but each person does not need to have their own bank to send or receive money, they can have an account within a bank of their preference, and use that extra information to route money transfers precisely.

"But they can't route money directly" — most people will never need to.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#322

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

> Plus I've never seen DHCP hostnames work

Over half the workstations at my office use DHCP hostnames and they work just fine. In fact I'll say exactly the opposite: I've never seen DHCP hostnames not work.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#323

Post by kyledrake »

> The design of IPv6 was intentionally very conservative. To a first level of approximation IPv6 is simply “IPv4 with bigger addresses”.

I don't agree with this take. I think it's actually quite a bit more complex, and this is a large part of the reason adoption has been slow. In retrospect, I think it would have been better off in practice to just literally extend the size of IPv4 addresses, and make it as simple as converting all IPv4 systems to hold a larger address.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#324

Post by aidenn0 »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #57
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?

The DoD mandated v6 a few years back. The US government could easily dictate that all of their supplied software had to support it.

I suspect that (nearly) all of the supplied software already supports it. Software support for ipv6 is nearly ubiquitous; configuration for ipv6 is the holdup.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#325

Post by xvilka »

einsteinx2 wrote: post #320
xvilka wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’ve seen this sentiment repeated over and over in this thread without a single explanation. Please explain how NAT on IPv4, as used in practice, does not increase security vs connecting machines each directly to a publicly accessible Internet address? I’m having a hard time understanding how this statement can possible be true.

Here is the very simple but practical explanation why: https://0day.work/an-example-why-nat-is-not-security/

And more high-level explanation as well: https://www.f5.com/resources/white-papers/the-myth-of-networ...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#326

Post by minitoar »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #269
minitoar wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? I don’t write a check to Google to use their email. It’s free.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#327

Post by qwertox »

albuic wrote: post #237
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ISP is the French "Free". They provide a router that is difficult to swap with my own (it is possible, but it is way easier to switch it to a bypass mode). With this router comes a TV box that requires IPv6 to work. When I replace DHCP/DNS with Pihole I need to account for that. While this is not a complex setup once you understand IPv6 you still need to learn it. I work in IT so I tried to get myself to IPv6 seve…

So you had to learn IPv6 the same way you learned IPv4. The question is: was it harder ? It seems you wanted to know IPv6 without learning it because you thought it would be the same as IPv4. And yes the Free boxes are hard to work with if you don't want to mess with vlan and still have TV services.

I think this misses the point. An IPv4-only home network has a lot of benefits, simplifying whatever you to in it which relies on IP addresses which you'll have to handle manually in code and databases.

His scenario is really a PITA, where he's basically forced to migrate to IPv6 only because of IPTV. There might have been a solution by creating an IPv6-only VLAN just for the TV, while keeping the rest at legacy, but it's not really trivial.

IPTV with Deutsche Telekom is also a pain, because they feed it in a separate VLAN and the routers and switches need to handle IGMP messages properly (IGMP proxy, IGMP snooping).

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#328

Post by uobytx2 »

tptacek wrote: post #123
uobytx2 wrote: post #90

People posting have mentioned that IPv4 is working for what they use the internet for. But of course it is. When NATs has been required for your whole life, how could the internet have built features that needed p2p routing? Just convince businesses to build something that requires special router configuration? And still wouldn’t work on phones or with ISPs that require CG NAT? You got what worked out of the box. You…

I can do more with the Internet today than I could with a static /22 assigned over my ISDN BRI back in the mid-1990s. A lot of things I would do back then, I would do differently today; running a chat system by connecting directly out to 6667/tcp feels pretty silly now, for instance. It's rough to build protocols that work that way today, but you're not missing much. Things were not better before the advent of presum…

Well sure, I’m not trying to say that the internet is less capable generally now than in the past.

I’m suggesting that the way you build an app is shaped by the prevalence of NAT, the same way the apps you build are shaped by how much bandwidth home users have for devices.

Some types of apps benefit from p2p functionality, and those hit obstacles for normal users due to port forwarding requirements, and are largely impossible which CG. I don’t think NAT is a villain, just something that does affect what and how we build stuff.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#330

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

albuic wrote: post #237
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ISP is the French "Free". They provide a router that is difficult to swap with my own (it is possible, but it is way easier to switch it to a bypass mode). With this router comes a TV box that requires IPv6 to work. When I replace DHCP/DNS with Pihole I need to account for that. While this is not a complex setup once you understand IPv6 you still need to learn it. I work in IT so I tried to get myself to IPv6 seve…

So you had to learn IPv6 the same way you learned IPv4. The question is: was it harder ? It seems you wanted to know IPv6 without learning it because you thought it would be the same as IPv4. And yes the Free boxes are hard to work with if you don't want to mess with vlan and still have TV services.

I think the main difference is that when I learned IPv4, pure-v4 was sufficient. Today, you can't run a pure-v6 network; you have to deal with both. The closest you can get is NAT64, which 1. doesn't always work, and 2. is still annoying to manage. (Which sucks, because doing just v6 would be nice)
Post reply on HN