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

81–90 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#81

Post by throw0101c »

general1465 wrote: post #78
apearson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changes to IPv6 would you make to make it easier to transition?

Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6. If IPv6 and IPv4 would be essentially the same from the get go, IPv4 would be a niche 20 years. Sure everything above IPv6 have, but it took years and years of screaming to get it.

> Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6.

All of those things exist in IPv6.

And it is physically impossible for DNS to be the same, as you have to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A7" address (for "IPv7" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#82

Post by [deleted] »

jmyeet wrote: post #56

I find it fascinating how these key technologies handle upgrades and breaking changes. For example, Python eschewed breaking changes through 2.7.x but the dam has burst since 3.0 and every point release (it seems?) makes breaking changes, sometimes reversing itself (eg the whole s/u string prefix thing). Many here will be familiar with the second system effect [1]. Usually people want to avoid making breaking changes…

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#83

Post by Hikikomori »

jmyeet wrote: post #56

I find it fascinating how these key technologies handle upgrades and breaking changes. For example, Python eschewed breaking changes through 2.7.x but the dam has burst since 3.0 and every point release (it seems?) makes breaking changes, sometimes reversing itself (eg the whole s/u string prefix thing). Many here will be familiar with the second system effect [1]. Usually people want to avoid making breaking changes…

>3. History has shown that upgrading network backbone hardware (in particular) is incredibly difficult through a process that's been described as "ossification", which is a nice description. Basically, network relays and routers wanted to avoid security issues and decided to discard things they didn't understand.

Would say the opposite is true. Core routers were the first to enable V6 support in any network as they would need support it for anything else to even use it. They got regularly replaced as bandwidth needs keeps rising as well.

Plenty of isps advertise ipv6 but haven't managed to give it to customers yet.

Interrupts are hardly a problem with any nics of the last decade really.

Companies like Facebook can and do use 240/4.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#84

Post by throw0101c »

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…

> It’s clumsier than ipv4. It’s unnecessary since NAT was invented.

This is a privileged view of someone whose ISP has enough money (or was around early enough) to get enough IPv4 addresses to assign one to every customer's WAN interface. Not everyone is so lucky.

A lot of folks get non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10[1] on their WAN interface with no way to do hole punching because they're behind CG-NAT.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_shared_address_space

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#85

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101c wrote: post #84
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…

> It’s clumsier than ipv4. It’s unnecessary since NAT was invented. This is a privileged view of someone whose ISP has enough money (or was around early enough) to get enough IPv4 addresses to assign one to every customer's WAN interface. Not everyone is so lucky. A lot of folks get non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10[1] on their WAN interface with no way to do hole punching because they're behind CG-NAT. [1] https:/…

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#86

Post by wmf »

throw0101c wrote: post #76
p1mrx wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-7 exists, but was rarely used. UTF-8 is convenient because ASCII has a spare bit, but UTF-8 is fundamentally possible because ASCII is variable-length. IPv4 is not variable-length.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-7 exists, but was rarely used. UTF-7 was possible because there was an out-of-band mechanism to signal its use, "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-7": * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2152 What's the OOB signalling in IP packet transmission between two random nodes on the Internet.

The first thing in the IP header is the version number.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#87

Post by Hikikomori »

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…

Why would you be typing of remembering ipv6 addresses? Representation has always been consistent, if you learn the rules, like how 1337::1/64 is a valid address.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#88

Post by wmf »

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.

SLAAC + mDNS makes IPv6 basically invisible.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#89

Post by throw0101c »

j1elo wrote: post #51
IsTom wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In IPv4 you only need to transmit IPv4 addresses. If the "cannot be" in parent post is referring to the exact byte disposition in packets, then I go the other way around to claim that I agree. Because the only way that a UTF8 character can pretend to be ASCII is because ASCII didn't use all of the 8 bits in a byte to begin with. Only way to have something similar in this case, would be that IPv4 didn't use all of the…

> What I argued was that IPv4 could be embedded into IPv6 address space if they had designed for it.

Like:

> Addresses in this group consist of an 80-bit prefix of zeros, the next 16 bits are ones, and the remaining, least-significant 32 bits contain the IPv4 address. For example, ::ffff:192.0.2.128 represents the IPv4 address 192.0.2.128. A previous format, called "IPv4-compatible IPv6 address", was ::192.0.2.128; however, this method is deprecated.[5]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#IPv4-mapped_IPv6_addresse...

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#90

Post by wmf »

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.

It's possible for Indian ISPs to buy IPv4 addresses and assign them to customers. Maybe not for $5/month but if you're willing to pay US prices (plus tax) you should be able to get US quality service.
Post reply on HN