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

401–410 of 433 posts

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#401

Post by Dagger2 »

AStonesThrow wrote: post #386
kevvok wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was a prefix from 2600::/16 isn’t special; it’s just from one of the blocks assigned to ARIN. One ISP I know of with an allocation in that range is Verizon, which announces a number of prefixes over BGP in 2600:1000::/24

Uhm, anyone with an ISP in the United States is going to have a block delegated from ARIN. That's the whole point of ARIN, isn't it? Nothing they delegate is inherently special, because ARIN administers all of the allocations for their region. I'm saying that perhaps the 2600::/16 delegation is especially reserved for a certain class of user in order to tag us as something. Surely, my own ISP holds more delegations t…

It's not being used to tag you. ARIN just happen to have 2600::/12 and various US ISPs got allocations from the beginning of it, which they use.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#402

Post by Dagger2 »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #50
Plasmoid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time has not been kind to this article. It's basically a compete list of fallacies that people believe about ipv6.

Oh, is IPv6 now backwards compatible with IPv4? No? I guess not a complete list of fallacies.

Yes, v6 is backwards compatible with v4 now, via dual stack, Teredo, 6to4, 6rd, 6over4, ISATAP, 6in4/4in6, NAT64/DNS64, 464xlat, DS-lite, MAP-T/E, 4rd, LW4over6 and probably other methods I'm forgetting. In fact many of these were in there from the start, so it was always backwards compatible.

You could make a reasonable argument that it has too many ways of being backwards compatible, even.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#403

Post by Dagger2 »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #397
Dagger2 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Socks goes on application layer, hardware sees it as normal tcp/ip4.

Applications don't support it either, and if the hardware is seeing normal v4 then you're limited to sending to v4 destinations. How is this helping?

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#404

Post by nlitened »

josephg wrote: post #374
nlitened wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree that it’s diverging from what was envisioned for the internet originally, so the thing doesn’t reach its technical potential.

On the other hand, I find it beautiful that network routing architecture and network security architecture naturally converged on NATs — I think because they are easier to understand for people, and more closely reflect what’s actually happening, without some hidden magic.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#405

Post by ktosobcy »

James_K wrote: post #368
ktosobcy wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so for anyone that "just browses the web" (which is overwhelming majority) there is virtually no difference/benefit? I don't play online games, don't use VPN, have a couple of services on my local RPi that has port forwarded on router and that's it... ipv6 could be handy when testing some service on my laptop and trying with external services but this happens so rarely that it's not an issue... on the flipside, whene…

It's likely the web itself has been shaped by the technology underpinning it. The article would seem to suggest something similar. Look at email. Now we all connect to the central email servers at Google and they handle most of everything else. Perhaps on the IPv6 internet, you would be able to buy a USB stick that handles all your emails for you. No more centralised mail, you just have a small server in your house t…

> Perhaps on the IPv6 internet, you would be able to buy a USB stick that handles all your emails for you.

You are too optimistic. Poeple can't be bothered to migrate off the google to some alternative provider (also free) and you expect them to buy a "usb stick" for local (mail) server? And then have to keep their machines up all the time and also connected constantly? (not everyone lives in the USA and have FTTH)...

I already mentioned that Opera tried something like "personal pod" 15-20 years ago and it flopped...

> No more centralised mail, you just have a small server in your house that does it for you. The same of social media, etc.

"social media" case seems interesting but again - we had mastodon for distributed social media and it's adoption is lukewarm... and now we have bluesky, which is also distributed and anyone host it and whatnot and it's userbase skyrocketed... and everyone use single instance.

All in all - people don't care about it, they want convenience and nothing else...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#406

Post by ktosobcy »

ktosobcy wrote: post #405
James_K wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely the web itself has been shaped by the technology underpinning it. The article would seem to suggest something similar. Look at email. Now we all connect to the central email servers at Google and they handle most of everything else. Perhaps on the IPv6 internet, you would be able to buy a USB stick that handles all your emails for you. No more centralised mail, you just have a small server in your house t…

> Perhaps on the IPv6 internet, you would be able to buy a USB stick that handles all your emails for you. You are too optimistic. Poeple can't be bothered to migrate off the google to some alternative provider (also free) and you expect them to buy a "usb stick" for local (mail) server? And then have to keep their machines up all the time and also connected constantly? (not everyone lives in the USA and have FTTH)..…

Opera Unite:

https://www.howtogeek.com/3468/turn-your-computer-into-a-fil...

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#407

Post by GoblinSlayer »

Dagger2 wrote: post #403
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socks goes on application layer, hardware sees it as normal tcp/ip4.

Applications don't support it either, and if the hardware is seeing normal v4 then you're limited to sending to v4 destinations. How is this helping?

It would help everything else, applications are not the only part of the network (and many already support socks), there are middle boxes, DHCP, NAT, firewalls, reverse proxies, LAN services and what not that don't need to be aware of new addressing scheme. Firewalls might benefit from it, but even they would still mostly work, even if with less than perfect precision. And even applications can benefit from simplification due to absence of dual mode sockets and no need for two sockets to listen on 0.0.0.0 and [::].

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#408

Post by GoblinSlayer »

WorldMaker wrote: post #400
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably NAT46 still requires most things like middle boxes to upgrade to ipv6, and also somehow needs to squeeze ipv6 addresses into ipv4 addresses, which is only a temporary solution at best. If addressing is two layer, e.g. NAT is 1.1.1.1 and everything behind it is in 10.0.0.0/8 network (cloudflare could use this scheme while having only one top level address), then you can use existing socks support without an…

My understanding is NAT46 is very nearly the same as NAT44 ("traditional NAT" between IPv4 and IPv4), using tricks like (but sometimes different from) SOCKS and UPnP and fake port numbers to accept incoming connections for one (or more) IPv4 addresses to pretend to be/delegate to some number of IPv6 consumers behind it. It doesn't solve general routing of any IPv6 address, just specific addresses routing via an IPv4…

NAT44 translates only client addresses, leaving server addresses intact, NAT46 has to translate both client and server addresses, which can be taxing if there are more servers than clients behind NAT, which is further exacerbated by server farms as each domain now has several addresses. Well, if clients connect only to facebook and google, that's only two addresses to translate.

I don't think you can use port numbers to disambiguate between servers as clients will connect to port 443 for https.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#409

Post by School-Cotton »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #26
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 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…

I’m curious what your home network involves that’s more complicated than simply plugging everything in to one cheap router.

Re: The IPv6 Transition

#410

Post by School-Cotton »

cyberax wrote: post #208
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,…

> It doesn't work from most hotels Most? I have not seen a _single_ hotel that supported IPv6. Not one. And I always check, just for fun. I've been to one hotel (in Menlo Park) that used to give out public IPv4 addresses automatically, and several hotels (The Venetian, Bellagio) where you could request a public IPv4 as needed. BTW, I'm also looking for a SIP provider that supports IPv6. So far I haven't found any in…

How does requesting a public IP address at a hotel even work? I’m sure if I called the front desk at any hotel and I asked about IP addresses they’d have no idea what I was talking about. Do big fancy hotels have a dedicated IT help desk line?
Post reply on HN