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

291–300 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#291

Post by tonymet »

Hikikomori wrote: post #281
tonymet wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t fib

No fibbing. Network devices don't use brackets.

  curl URL Format curl -6 "[2001:db8::1]:8080/"
  wget URL Format wget "[2001:db8::1]"
  ssh Standard Login ssh user@2001:db8::1
  ssh Specified Port ssh -p 2222 user@2001:db8::1
  scp Remote Path scp file.txt [2001:db8::1]:/tmp/
  rsync Remote Path rsync -av file.txt [2001:db8::1]:/tmp/
  nc (netcat) Positional nc -6 2001:db8::1 80
  telnet Positional telnet 2001:db8::1 80.
  nmap Target nmap -6 2001:db8::1

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#292

Post by saghm »

greenavocado wrote: post #220
order-matters wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any idea why no one else could service the building? Ive usually had option of verizon or optimum when ive rented, though my experience has been queens and long island

https://www.allconnect.com/blog/fcc-prohibits-exclusive-agre...

If I'm reading correctly, it only prevented new agreements going forward rather than penalizing the old ones, and of course the fact that the FCC's party line split will tilt in favor of the current president at some point every turn means that this might not even be policy anymore (and that's before even taking into account that the current administration doesn't exactly follow precedents around administrative agencies).

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#293

Post by kjs3 »

voxadam wrote: post #190
wao0uuno wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dismiss IPv6 because my ISP doesn't support it.

I dismiss ISPs that don't support IPv6.

I should dismiss my ISP that's worked for something like 20 years, works now, and will in all likelyhood still be working in 20 years (baring M&A nonsense or the apocalypse)?

Sorry, IPv6 is absolutely not the hill I'm going to die on.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#294

Post by general1465 »

throw0101d wrote: post #214
general1465 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with. It was stupid on IPv4 and it remain stupid on IPv6, yet we already have experience from IPv4 that it was stupid.

> So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with. If an address is not public how can you start an connection from it, or end a connection at it? A web server needs a public address if you want to have people reach it. And you, at some point, also have to have a public address if you want to connect to pubic services: either on your end-host, at your CPE/router's WAN interfac…

So having all devices on public addresses was stupid to begin with on IPv4 and it was arrogantly stupid on IPv6.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#295

Post by urineaut »

wjholden wrote: post #142
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…

The header of an IPv4 packet has the source and destination addresses, both as 32-bit values. These fields are adjacent, and there's other stuff next to them. If you appended more bytes to the source address, routers would think that those new bytes are the destination address. This would not be backward compatible. Interestingly, what you're describing really is similar to how many languages represent an IPv4 addres…

That's not a language-specific thing, but is actually part of the IPv6 RFCs as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses: [1], [2]

This is super useful because (at least on Linux) IPv6 sockets per default are dual-stack and bind to both IPv6 and IPv6 (except if you are using the IPV6_V6ONLY sockopt or a sysctl), so you don't need to open and handle IPv4 and IPv6 sockets separately (well, maybe some extra code for logging/checking properly with the actual IPv4 address).

That is also documented in ipv6(7):

  IPv4 connections can be handled with the v6 API by using 
  v4-mapped-on-v6 address type; thus a program needs to support only
  this API type to support both protocols.  This is handled
  transparently by the address handling functions in the C library.
  
  IPv4 and IPv6 share the local port space.  When you get an IPv4
  connection or packet to an IPv6 socket, its source address will be
  mapped to v6.
[0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5156#section-2.2 [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.5....

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#296

Post by orangeboats »

general1465 wrote: post #294
throw0101d wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you actually agree with me, that making all addresses public was stupid to begin with. If an address is not public how can you start an connection from it, or end a connection at it? A web server needs a public address if you want to have people reach it. And you, at some point, also have to have a public address if you want to connect to pubic services: either on your end-host, at your CPE/router's WAN interfac…

So having all devices on public addresses was stupid to begin with on IPv4 and it was arrogantly stupid on IPv6.

The fact that we are giving IP addresses an hierarchy is stupid. If you don't want outsiders to connect to your device use a firewall.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#297

Post by vsgherzi »

kalleboo wrote: post #131
rickcarlino wrote: post #115

Imagine being able to connect two computers over the internet using sockets. WebRTC is a marvel, but I miss the whimsical days of running something on a port at home and connecting to it without thinking about NAT.

Imagine being able to make a voice call to a friend without paying for a middle-man to proxy the traffic completely unnecessarily.

You can still do this! It’s just very hard and needs hole punching and maybe a stun server

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#298

Post by [deleted] »

Dagger2 wrote: post #288
yrjrjjrjjtjjr wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protocol field in the ipv4 header seems like a reasonable choice. A value would be associated for ipv6 and if that value is chosen then additional header data follows the ipv4 header.

Perhaps you could use 41, the value already associated with doing this. (What's up with people constantly suggesting that v6 should do things that it already does?)

[deleted]

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#299

Post by ottah »

Ipv6 is a theoretical benefit to the commons but as an individual it's an increase in complexity and a new abstraction for nearly the same result as your existing ipv4 network. There's just not enough incentive to invest in the switch.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#300

Post by kalleboo »

Bender wrote: post #263
throw0101d wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or ... people can use the DoD/Mod and assorted other space to get their IPv4 allocations. Someone did the math on this: > Now, average daily assignment rates have been running at above 10 /8s per year, for 2010, and approached 15 /8s towards the end. This means any reclamation effort has to recover at least 15 /8s per year just to break even on 2010’s growth. That’s 5.9% of the total IPv4 address space, or 6.8% of…

There are 'only four billion IPv4 addresses, and there are eight billion people on the planet. There are just as many smartphones (I have two: personal and work) Unless all of these devices are running a dedicated full time server that must be reachable inbound by everyone this is not required. At any given time "all the people" are not online. That is why DHCP (per ISP) takes care of this. Maybe some day all the peo…

> were already IPv6 a long time ago for the most part so it's really a non issue

"IPv4 is all we need because half the internet is already on IPv6 anyway" sounds like a weird argument to me.

Post reply on HN