Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#171

Post by Dagger2 »

Sanzig wrote: post #44
Macha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think GitHub and AWS are the two biggest blockers to IPv6 left. Sure your public web servers might need IPv4 for a long while yet, but all these backend microservices and CI builds etc could all be v6 only, except they need to pull stuff from GitHub or certain AWS services.

It's particularly aggravating with AWS, since they charge for IPv4 addresses yet many of their services aren't IPv6 capable.

They do seem to be making progress on that: https://aws.amazon.com/new/?ams%23article-feed%23pattern-dat...

They've enabled v6 on an average of something like two services per week for the past year... but they have a lot of services.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#172

Post by dpc_01234 »

Incipient wrote: post #59

The main thing I don't like is type-ability. Even now I type in 192.168.1.14 to connect to my mates computer to play satisfactory. No way in heck am I trying in an ip6!

I wish I had your problems. :D . Problems that are really only a mild inconvenience, and can be solved with a single line in hosts file.

My biggest and possibly only problem preventing me from going IPV6-only is that Github doesn't support it, and there's just too much darn software I need to needs Github. (Yes, I know NAT64 exist - it's just extra complexity for something that is not even my problem in the first place).

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#173

Post by iso1631 »

XorNot wrote: post #149
iso1631 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the ISP can see 58 different ipv6 addresses sending packets in the last hour With ipv4 it can see one ipv4 address Now sure that 58 could all be on one device with 58 different IPs and using a different one for each connection In reality that's not the case.

Okay but why does this matter? They're your ISP they also have your address, credit card number and a technician has been in your home and also supplied the router in the common case. The theoretical vague problem here is being used to defend a status quo which has led to complete centralization of Internet traffic because of the difficulty of P2P connectivity due to NAT.

No device on my ipv6 vlans can establish P2P tunnels outside with random clients.

Firewalls and good old monetisation prevented your p2p connectivity utopia, not nat.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#174

Post by iso1631 »

knorker wrote: post #163
iso1631 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can do that So what's the point in ipv6?

I mean, so many reasons. Not the least of which is carrier grade NAT is out. And that alone implies so much cost savings, performance increase, and home user flexibility . I'm struggling to assume good faith on your question, since it's so strange. I feel like I need to start from scratch explaining the internet, since asking this question reveals a lack of knowledge about everything networking.

I don't have CG Nat, I choose a proper ISP. Opening a hole in my ipv6 firewall or forwarding a port in in my ipv4 firewall is effectively the same thing, I define the policy (allow traffic arriving on $address on tcp/1234 to this server on vlan 12) and it goes live.

Away from home, like I am at the moment, I vpn all my traffic back home, to work, or to a mullvad endpoint. Neither the hotel wifi nor tethering off my phone gives me a working ipv6 address (anything other than an fe80::) anyway.

All my workflows work on ipv4 only. Some workflows (especially around the corporate laptop) don't work on ipv6 only - maybe that's a zscaler thing, maybe its a windows thing.

As such the only choice is ipv4 with ipv6 as a nice to have, or ipv4 only.

Personally I prefer the smaller attack surface of a single network protocol.

Sounds like ipv6 is a good solution for people who choose ISPs with CGNat. It doesn't matter to me if I vpn home via my ipv6 endpoint or my ipv4 endpoint, I expose a very minimal set of services.

I guess if I wanted to host more than 4 servers on the same port at home it would be handy, as my ISP will only allow me to have 4 public IPs without paying for more. I don't host anything other than my wireguard endpoint and some UDP forwards which I specific redirect to where I want to go (desktop, laptop, server) - another great feature of nat, but yes nat66 can do that too.

But where's the killer feature of ipv6. Is it just CGNat on poor ISPs?

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#175

Post by knorker »

iso1631 wrote: post #174
knorker wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, so many reasons. Not the least of which is carrier grade NAT is out. And that alone implies so much cost savings, performance increase, and home user flexibility . I'm struggling to assume good faith on your question, since it's so strange. I feel like I need to start from scratch explaining the internet, since asking this question reveals a lack of knowledge about everything networking.

I don't have CG Nat, I choose a proper ISP. Opening a hole in my ipv6 firewall or forwarding a port in in my ipv4 firewall is effectively the same thing, I define the policy (allow traffic arriving on $address on tcp/1234 to this server on vlan 12) and it goes live. Away from home, like I am at the moment, I vpn all my traffic back home, to work, or to a mullvad endpoint. Neither the hotel wifi nor tethering off my p…

I'm not sure where that long story is supposed to convey. Cool story, bro.

> Sounds like ipv6 is a good solution for people who choose ISPs with CGNat.

I mean… this is just "not even wrong".

> Is it just CGNat on poor ISPs?

I already said no to this.

Look, like I said, you appear to be unaware of so much about everything about the Internet, running an ISP, running a service provider, corporate networks, ISP-customer relationships, small businesses, BGP viable policies, cloud economics, etc… that it's hard to know where to even start. And while HN is great for some things, HN comments are just not suitable for something that is shaped more like a course or internship. This can't even be described as "gaps" in your knowledge.

I'm put off by your confidence without the knowledge, and of course also by your implication that if you have CGNat then you should have just worked a little harder to not be so poor, to pay a better ISP, or you should move to a more expensive place where other ISP options exist. Of course ignoring that this doesn't scale to the population at all, and extra address bits are very relevant to scaling.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#176

Post by graemep »

db48x wrote: post #138
graemep wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most home users do not have a static public IPv4 address - they have a single address that changes over time.

But most ISPs aren’t giving out static IPv6 prefixes either. Instead they are collecting logs of what addresses they’ve handed out to which customer and holding on to them for years and years in case a court requests them. Tracking visitors doesn’t need to use ip addresses simply because it’s trivial to do so with cookies or browser fingerprinting. There’s exactly zero privacy either way.

> Instead they are collecting logs of what addresses they’ve handed out to which customer and holding on to them for years and years in case a court requests them.

They are only supposed to hang on to them for a limited time according to the law where I live (six months AFAIK). Courts are also unwilling to accept IPv4 addresses as proof of identity.

> Tracking visitors doesn’t need to use ip addresses simply because it’s trivial to do so with cookies or browser fingerprinting

Cookies can be deleted. Browser fingerprinting can be made unreliable.

Its not zero privacy either way. Privacy is not a binary. Giving out more information reduces your privacy.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#177

Post by kalleboo »

LegionMammal978 wrote: post #39
lxgr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody cares about NAT at home. Only because most people don't know how NAT is hurting them, and because corporations have spent incredible resources on hacking around the problem for when peer to peer is required (essentially only for VoIP latency optimization and gaming). NAT hurts peer to peer applications much more than cloud services, which are client-server by nature and as such indeed don't care that only ou…

Even in a NAT-less world, the common advice is to use a firewall rule that disallows incoming connections by default. (And I'd certainly be worried if typical home routers were configured otherwise.) So either way, you'd need the average person to mess with their router configuration, if they want to allow incoming P2P connections without hole-punching tricks. At best, the lack of NAT might save you an address-discov…

Hole-punching tricks work fine. They don't work at all of both users are behind IPv4 NAT/CGNAT.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#178

Post by orangeboats »

CookieCrisp wrote: post #7

We’re so close guys! Another 25 years and we might almost be there!

It's already the major protocol in many countries. A decade ago people were laughing, saying IPv6 will never break 10% adoption. Now it's 50% and somehow people are still making the same joke. Are we insidiously shifting the goalpost somehow?

I don't know 'bout you but ots of services are confident enough in the technology to allow IPv6-only as an option, see eg. Hertzner.

At this point one has to be borderline delusional to think IPv6 is only viable in another 25 years.

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#179

Post by lxgr »

zadikian wrote: post #137
bombcar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UPnP has covered a huge percentage of use cases that actual users care about, and those who it doesn't cover are often able to do their own customization.

upnp should not exist. Any new router default disables it, as it should be.

Care to elaborate? Non-sophisticated users don't deserve IP reachability?

Re: New patches allow building Linux IPv6-only

#180

Post by ErroneousBosh »

throw0101c wrote: post #161
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? What would be the advantage in it?

>> Why don't you want every device to have a public IP? > What would be the advantage in it? Not having to deal with ICE/TURN/STUN. Being able to develop P2P applications without having to build out that infrastructure (anyone remember Skype's "supernodes"?).

This is not something I ever want any device on my network to do.
Post reply on HN