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

91–100 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#91

Post by throw0101c »

wmf wrote: post #86
throw0101c wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

So you just change the version number… like was done with IPv6?

How would this be any different: all hosts, firewalls, routers, etc, would have to be updated… like with IPv6. So would all application code to handle (e.g.) connection logging… like with IPv6.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#92

Post by netdevme »

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.

You can even buy a block, but the smallest one has 256 addresses.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#93

Post by wmf »

throw0101c wrote: post #91
wmf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The first thing in the IP header is the version number. So you just change the version number… like was done with IPv6? How would this be any different: all hosts, firewalls, routers, etc , would have to be updated… like with IPv6. So would all application code to handle (e.g.) connection logging… like with IPv6.

I was addressing the narrow claim that you cannot distinguish ASCII from UTF-7. You can distinguish IPv4 from IPv6 by looking at the version field (and I forgot to mention the L2 protocol field is out of band from IP's perspective). Obviously if the receiver doesn't support UTF-7 or IPv6 then it won't be understood. Forward compatibility isn't possible in this case.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#94

Post by tsoukase »

If IPv6 doesn't dominate in the next, let's say, 10 years, they might publish the IPv8 which will be an 64bit space, backwards compatible with IPv4. It will be the only case where a newer version of software comes back closer to an older one.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#95

Post by jcgl »

throw0101c wrote: post #74
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…

> 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. 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 forma…

I think your summary is really great. One of the better refutations I've seen about the "what about v4 but longer??" question.

However, I think people do get tripped up by the paradigm shift from DHCP -> SLAAC. That's not something that is an inevitable consequence of increasing address size. And compared to other details (e.g. the switch to multicasting, NDP, etc.), it's a change that's very visible to all operators and really changes how things work at a conceptual level.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#96

Post by jcgl »

mono442 wrote: post #2

The main problem with IPv6 is that it is different from IPv4. There's SLAAC, there's no ARP and there're also some other differences. In the end, it's simpler to just not bother.

ARP-schmarp. That doesn't matter to almost anyone who doesn't need to go deep into the network.

But yeah, SLAAC's paradigm of moving assignment logic into the node (away from network infra like in DHCP) is definitely a stumbling point.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#97

Post by NekkoDroid »

kstrauser wrote: post #75
oconnore wrote: post #41

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 m…

That's literally impossible, to hear some people tell it. "And also, look how hard it'd be to memorize that address", say the people who remember like 2 IPv4 addresses, one of them being 127.0.0.1.

I remember like 10 different IPv4 addresses, 6 of which are DNS servers where each octet is a single number, 1 is my router, 1 is my home network switch, 1 is my home server and the last one localhost.

The main thing all those have in common is they are either something I frequently use (all mentioned local IPs) or just stupid easy to remember (DNS servers), neither of which isn't possible for IPv6.

From memory isn't localhost for IPv6 not shorter than for IPv4? The answer is yes, it is ::1 and I was thinking of the Multicast and Link-local address prefixes which are ff00:: and fe80:: respectively.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#98

Post by wmf »

jcgl wrote: post #95
throw0101c wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 forma…

I think your summary is really great. One of the better refutations I've seen about the "what about v4 but longer??" question. However, I think people do get tripped up by the paradigm shift from DHCP -> SLAAC. That's not something that is an inevitable consequence of increasing address size. And compared to other details (e.g. the switch to multicasting, NDP, etc.), it's a change that's very visible to all operators…

DHCPv6 now exists and every OS except Android supports it.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#99

Post by tonymet »

Hikikomori wrote: post #87
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.

that address doesn’t even work in the address bar

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#100

Post by jcgl »

wmf wrote: post #98
jcgl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your summary is really great. One of the better refutations I've seen about the "what about v4 but longer??" question. However, I think people do get tripped up by the paradigm shift from DHCP -> SLAAC. That's not something that is an inevitable consequence of increasing address size. And compared to other details (e.g. the switch to multicasting, NDP, etc.), it's a change that's very visible to all operators…

DHCPv6 now exists and every OS except Android supports it.

> except Android

That alone is significant.

Furthermore, DHCPv6 holds you back from various desirable things like privacy addresses and (arguably even more importantly) IPv6 Mostly.

Post reply on HN