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

101–110 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#101

Post by tonymet »

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:/…

so ipv6 is now a social justice issue? I'll send you the $2 a month for a elastic IP .

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#102

Post by kalleboo »

Bender wrote: post #67

The only place I have utilized an IPv6 address publicly is on my authoritative name servers only because some DNS testing tools assume it is there. It's not really needed however. My home firewall does have one but I have never used it. I can't think of a use for it. I have multiple static IPv4 addresses and they have suited me just fine for decades. I suppose I could bind a Squid SSL Bump MitM proxy to it in case a…

> I have multiple static IPv4 addresses and they have suited me just fine for decades

IPv6 is for the people (countries, continents) who did not get in early on the IPv4 address gold rush. Your take is basically "got mine, F you".

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#103

Post by tonymet »

apearson wrote: post #42
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.

that reduces part of the scope for some of the customers

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#104

Post by LoganDark »

throw0101c wrote: post #73
LoganDark wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> What's the difference, other than port forwarding? Does NAT cause some sort of unique issue that makes existence miserable? The difference is that your home router does not get a public IP on its WAN interface, but perhaps the non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10 [1] with CG-NAT. So if you don't have a public IP address, how exactly are you supposed to forward anything? What is the other end supposed to connect to a…

> The difference is that your home router does not get a public IP on its WAN interface, but perhaps the non-publicly-routable 100.64.0.0/10 [1] with CG-NAT.

Yes...? I know that, but does that cause any issues in practice other than death of P2P?

> So if you don't have a public IP address, how exactly are you supposed to forward anything? What is the other end supposed to connect to as an IP address?

I already mentioned port forwarding because with something like CG-NAT, it is often not possible (or not allowed). But I am not aware of any issues that stem from this other than an inability for others to establish connections directly to you. In fact, my network has a public IPv4 without CG-NAT and yet I am already used to being unable to receive data other than back through a TCP stream. That is the entire reason reverse proxy tunnels (such as ngrok, etc.) exist.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#105

Post by zamadatix »

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…

The real friction with SLAAC was that certain people (particularly some at Google) tried to force it as the only option on users, not that IPv6 ever forced it as the only option. The same kind of thing would likely occur with any new IP version rolling out.

For comparison IPv4 had:

  - Static (1980 - original spec)
  - RARP   (1984 - standalone spec)
  - BOOTP  (1985 - standalone spec)
  - DHCP   (1993 - standalone spec)
And for IPv6:

  - Static (1995 - pre, 1998 final spec)
  - SLAAC  (1996 - pre standalone, 1998 final standalone)
  - DHCPv6 (2003 - standalone)
Some of these have had subsequent minor updates, e.g. DHCP was updated in 1997 and so on.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#106

Post by LoganDark »

jofla_net wrote: post #47
LoganDark wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have never seen any situation where this is not already necessary other than UPnP which already almost never works reliably. A publicly-addressable relay is already practically non-negotiable for anything over the internet.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#107

Post by zamadatix »

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…

> IPv4 is very painful for people not in the US or Western Europe that (a) were now there early enough to get in on the IPv4 address land rush, or (b) don't have enough money to buy as many IPv4 addresses as they need (assuming someone wants to sell them).

The lack of pain is not really about the US & Western Europe have plenty of addresses or something of that nature, it's that alternative answers such as NAT and CG-NAT (i.e. double NAT where the carrier uses non-public ranges for the consumer connections) deployments are still growing faster in those regions than IPv6 adoption when excluding cellular networks (they've been pretty good about adopting IPv6 and are where most of the IPv6 traffic in those regions comes from).

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#108

Post by general1465 »

throw0101c wrote: post #81
general1465 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

> All of those things exist in IPv6.

And it has not existed at the start of the IPv6 and is one of the many reasons why after all those years we are having a poor penetration of IPv6.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#109

Post by general1465 »

dogleash wrote: post #28
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.

Yup. People learn parts of v4 through osmosis because it's the default. Then when networking topics come up, it's easier to keep going with stuff that looks familiar rather than un-learning assumptions. Why bother with the weird other thing that's not even mandatory?

Because IPv4 is logical and makes sense. First thing which IPv6 came up with? No NATs everything will have a public address. It turned out that this was hare brained idea so let's just cover it up with firewall. However misconfigured firewall means that everything is open... IPv6 has been designed by people who were unable to think further than what is going to be tomorrow for a lunch.
Post reply on HN