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

371–380 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#371

Post by James_K »

Vilian wrote: post #183
snvzz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is yet another way they're ahead relative to the US.

When you want to control and censor all internet is much easier todo that only with ipv6 and not care for ipv4, not sure if that's a "step ahead"

v6 is just as easy to censor as v4. Given the popularity of Veitnamese pho noodles over there, I don't think internet censorship is as important an objective as you estimate. Have you noticed how many Chinese tourists there are around the world? Not much you can do about internet when any of them could just pick up a newspaper.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#372

Post by James_K »

kyledrake wrote: post #323

> 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…

I feel like the hard part there is actually accessing all the IPv4 systems to change how they handle addresses. I don't know the full scope of difference, but I feel like once you can do a software update to all of your devices, the cost of increased complexity in protocol would be relatively constant between a minimal and actual v6. You are just pushing different data through the update.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#373

Post by James_K »

zaphoyd wrote: post #71
growse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I've ever heard this view expressed by serious, competent network engineers. I have heard it a lot from the home hobbyist though, but I'm not sure how much that demographic matters in the grand scheme of things.

I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead! Additionally, like a sibling comment notes, a home hobbyist has full control over at least half, often more, of their addresses and can easily choose addresses for their network that are as short or shorter and easier to remember and organize vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with m…

A more accurate way to describe this is that IPv4 prevents anyone who isn't a hobbyist or professional from running their own server.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#374

Post by josephg »

nlitened wrote: post #321
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…

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…

Yeah I hear the argument that CG-NAT is fine for most people. It’s true, but kinda sad. It means most people won’t be able to run home servers, or learn to be the server for a multiplayer video game, or all sorts of other things I took for granted when learning the craft. It kinda locks in, technically, the consumer and producer relationship between computers on the internet. And for no good technical reason - just a quirk of history. CGNAT is usable; but it’s sad.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#375

Post by selcuka »

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.

Remember rich people wants to sell stuff to poor people, so if it's a problem for poor people then it's also a problem for the rich.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#376

Post by Dagger2 »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #313
growse wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It could work like 4 socks requests wrapped in each other like onion. But LAN services wouldn't need to care about long addressing as they don't need to cross network boundary, while letting everything else use new approach, so you could use old stuff without changing anything and there would be no need for new ip6 drivers with new vulnerabilities that are yet to be fixed.

But no v4 devices support this "four socks requests wrapped like an onion" thing you're proposing, so how would they work with it?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#377

Post by elcritch »

cyberax wrote: post #358
elcritch wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean both are fairly complex tables. The ipv6 addresses are longer, but really I'd use hostnames in either case. Ipv4 includes the client id's, dhcp lease time, Mac addresses, etc. I just wish routers had better / easier support for local DNS. Also a true tld reserved for internal network names would be awesome. Technically `.internal` is undefined. That said, I do use ipv4 for easy local addresses just because loc…

> I'd use hostnames in either case How? There is no way to associate hostnames with addresses in IPv6 that works unversally. Stateful IPv6 is _not_ _supported_ by Android, for example. And since _each_ _device_ handles its own address selection, there's no central way to say "hey, this is an IP camera, let it have a static ::1:2:3:4 address suffix". Moreover, with IPv6 I'm losing an ability to do quick checks of the…

> How? There is no way to associate hostnames with addresses in IPv6 that works unversally.

It looks like SLAAC and RDNSS is supported by most modern OSes, including android.

It’s definitely much more painful currently, but no reason you couldn’t have your router broadcast RDNSS. Then in your routers local DNS registry associate IP camera at ::aac::eda3::1 to ‘ip-camera-1.internal’. In theory about as easy as configuring device at Mac ‘de:fe:34:21:00’ is set to IP 10.0.0.5 and host name.

In practice granted it looks like a PITA right now. Searching google hardly yields helpful or easy tutorials on this stuff. Many home WiFi routers are pretty behind too. Though pi hole looks to have some support for this stuff.

I wish DNS options were easier or better for configuring for small networks.

IMHO IPv6 can be pretty nice but really needs saner defaults and better software support. No wonder IPv6 has taken so long.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#378

Post by cyberax »

exabrial wrote: post #365
cyberax wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To give ipv6 some credit, there are some very useful things like flow labels. They are not useful, as you can't depend on them.

Wasn't aware of this actually, whats the issue with them?

If you're using solely the flow labels to do load balancing, malicious clients can force traffic to come through only one load balancer by setting the same flow label.

You need to add the source IP/port into the mix. But they alone are in practice enough for decent load balancing.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#379

Post by cyberax »

thayne wrote: post #359
cyberax wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS supports NAT64 automatically if you have an Internet gateway attached, you just need to set it up in the VPC settings.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/nat-gateway... Says you need to have an AWS NAT for that to work. And AFAIK, setting up a NAT requires an ipv4 elastic ip. And it makes since that AWS would want customers to have their own IP for NAT64, so that if one customer does something to get the ip address blocklisted it doesn't impact other customers.

Yes, you're correct.

Though I don't think AWS cares too much about IP blocklist, you can always just get another elastic IP at any moment.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#380

Post by matrix2003 »

cyberax wrote: post #207
matrix2003 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congrats, now these hosts can't talk to each other due to the ULA addresses being less preferred. What do you mean by this? Are you taking about mDNS still referencing the withdrawn prefix?

If two hosts have both mutually accessible ULA and GUA addresses, they will prefer _GUAs_ to talk to each other. So the connection will be susceptible to the prefix withdrawal if the upstream goes down (BTW, IPv6 did nothing sane for multihoming either). > Are you taking about mDNS still referencing the withdrawn prefix? That too.

Oh, interesting. My machines have not had good mDNS support, so I have been hardcoding ULAs for LAN-only traffic.
Post reply on HN