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

IPv6 is the only way forward

ankshilp.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#41

Post by oconnore »

I don't understand why people are so negative about IPv6. I have done essentially zero home networking work and I just ran this successfully. It just works!

``` > ping6 google.com PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2605:59c0:236f:3a08:7883:9d04:c26d:5fa1 --> 2607:f8b0:4005:806::200e 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:806::200e, icmp_seq=0 hlim=117 time=22.262 ms 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:806::200e, icmp_seq=1 hlim=117 time=26.124 ms 16 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4005:806::200e, icmp_seq=2 hlim=117 time=26.807 ms ^C --- google.com ping6 statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 22.262/25.064/26.807/2.001 ms ```

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#42

Post by apearson »

tonymet wrote: post #26

> There are countless threads online on forums like Hacker News, Reddit where people who never really got comfortable with idea of IPv6 It’s clumsier than ipv4. It’s unnecessary since NAT was invented. In practice IPv6 requires dual stack, which means twice as many firewalls, names and routes to manage — so 4x the debugging because you have 2 dimensions that can either be working or failing. Addresses are too long to…

To reduce doing things twice there is NAT64/646XLAT. How many v4 addresses have you memorized, I normally use DNS or mDNS.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#43

Post by IsTom »

isodev wrote: post #15

Someone should’ve thought about the UX of IPv6 before declaring it to be “the way”. It’s like having to learn Klingon just to setup your printer. IPvNext could sort that out… maybe it’s time to consider moving on.

Like there was any chance to see UX of this to work or not in most of places. I've never had an ISP that even offered any IPv6 connectivity besides mobile internet.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#44

Post by LoganDark »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #36
jdwithit wrote: post #4

IPv4 has been "in crisis" for the entire 20 years I've worked in tech and we seem to be managing alright. Not to say things can't be better or we shouldn't try to improve. But I'll be surprised if v4 isn't still the default for most use cases in another 20 years.

His point is that you're managing alright because you live in a country where your ISP can give you a public IP address. The author lives in a country where that is not possible and accesses the Internet behind layers of NAT.

What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable?

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#45

Post by thomasdziedzic »

IPv6 feels like we just can't admit to ourselves that it has been a failed transition. What would it take to come up with IPv7 which takes in the lessons of IPv6 and produces something better that we can all agree is worth transitioning to over IPv4.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#47

Post by jofla_net »

LoganDark wrote: post #44
lern_too_spel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is that you're managing alright because you live in a country where your ISP can give you a public IP address. The author lives in a country where that is not possible and accesses the Internet behind layers of NAT.

What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable?

Hole punching, which has various forms, may or may not work. This means if you're doing something realtime, you may need to stick a server(reachable endpoint) in between it, at the very least reducing performance.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#48

Post by Chu4eeno »

tonymet wrote: post #26

> There are countless threads online on forums like Hacker News, Reddit where people who never really got comfortable with idea of IPv6 It’s clumsier than ipv4. It’s unnecessary since NAT was invented. In practice IPv6 requires dual stack, which means twice as many firewalls, names and routes to manage — so 4x the debugging because you have 2 dimensions that can either be working or failing. Addresses are too long to…

... and annoying casting from `sockaddr` to either `sockaddr_in` or `sockaddr_in6*` while you pass around a socklen_t.

10 years ago I was all gung-ho about IPv6, but it's annoying at every level.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#49

Post by ux266478 »

The way forward for what though? It remains to be seen if this level of infrastructure and complexity has any kind of resilience. I seriously doubt it does, looking back on history. I think it's far more likely that the post-industrial population contraction (which hasn't even really begun) as well as climate change (anthropogenic or not) will make it far more likely that this model of "everybody uses a computer" ends up in the junk bin of history. Can't say I'd be sad to see it go. Somebody who has no interest in computers shouldn't ever have to touch one.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#50

Post by [deleted] »

IsTom wrote: post #38
j1elo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Sincere question. As a very superficial idea, if we go back to the drawing board, for example we could decide our new cool concept of address to be an IPv4 + an hex suffix, maybe at the expense of not having a humongous address space. So 10.20.30.40 would be an IPv4 address, and 10.20.30.40:fa:be:4c:9d could be an IPv6 address. With the :00:00:00:00 suffix being equivalent to the IPv4 version. I just made th…

How do you squeeze that in IPv4 packet? Especially in a way that won't get mangled by random ossified devices in between?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN