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

311–320 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#311

Post by tsoukase »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #126
tsoukase wrote: post #94

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.

How do you plan to let IPv4 (32 bit address space) actually address and communicate with an IPv8 (64 bit address space) host? You don't have enough bits to identify the v8 host.

Something like 1:2:3:4:a:b:c:d where the most significant 32bits are a valid IPv4. The kernel figures out and keep all others the same (NAT etc). We extend the address space, not invent a new stack. The IPv6 critics shout out that this would be a viable solution.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#312

Post by order-matters »

saghm wrote: post #200
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

Optimum was the one option we had. This was in Brooklyn (Park Slope specifically, so pretty high density). My vague understanding is that Verizon wasn't hooked up to the building, but I have no idea why that would be. I only wish they managed to recognize that when sending out advertisements.

Ah okay, i wonder if the dilemma was on verizon side or building owner side

if verizon charges to connect the building and couldnt make an agreement with the owner. or maybe owner has non financial reasons (laziness & indifference) for denying them. or maybe some operational reason verzion wasnt confident in ability to install

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#313

Post by soupbowl »

artooro wrote: post #203

I'm surprised how few people are talking about ULAs. For any home network where you don't have a reserved global address space from your ISP, it makes sense to configure a ULA on your router and use it for all internal hosts, and the ISP assigned address is only used for Internet access. This does not require NAT/Npt and you have the best of both worlds.

I use ULAs since my ISP changed my ipv6 prefix twice a month. What I learned is that ipv6 configuration usually requires a more 'comerical grade' router. In the end it works well for me but getting it setup initially took a lot of effort. Easy to do the second time though.

I later moved and my current ISP does not have ipv6 support but my ULA setup kept working fine with some minor tweaks.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#314

Post by blinded »

miladyincontrol wrote: post #130
blinded wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this, my college had 2 /16s for no reason. The printers were all public, was a mess.

I mean having a public address doesnt mean it has to be publicly routable. Same thing applies to ipv6. I speak as someone who worked at an institute that had similar abundance of address space.

In my case it was publicly routable. The ips and ports of key infra were on https://www.shodan.io/.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#315

Post by cwillu »

boredatoms wrote: post #128
NekkoDroid wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Telling people to use ULA subnet fddd:: with dhcpv6 is my way. fddd::7 is easier to type than 10.0.0.7

one of those addresses requires two hands and hitting the shift key, the other is easily done one-handed.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#316

Post by kjs3 »

camgunz wrote: post #304
kjs3 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it doesn't support IPv6 it doesn't work.

My experience, indeed reality, says different for all values of "work" that matter to me.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#317

Post by yrjrjjrjjtjjr »

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?)

That's similar to, but not exactly what we were discussing. In particular 6in4 has a full ipv6 header after the ipv4 header, but here the suggestion was instead that supplementary infomation would follow. For example, the most significant address bits could be stored in the ipv4 header and the least significant ones in the new part.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#318

Post by Dagger2 »

rkagerer wrote: post #272
Dagger2 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use it. This reaction is coming from a lack of familiarity, not from it actually being hard. Here's some roughly equivalent IP addresses: 203.0.113.45+192.168.1.1 ↔ 2001:db8:2d4f:1::1 203.0.113.45+192.168.1.2 ↔ 2001:db8:2d4f:1::2 203.0.113.45+192.168.1.3 ↔ 2001:db8:2d4f:1::3 203.0.113.45+192.168.2.1 ↔ 2001:db8:2d4f:2::1 The v6 addresses are made up of the network prefix (2001:db8:2d4f, basically an opaque string…

Thanks, that's a helpful comparison. You've shown a fixed prefix 3 hextets (48 bits) in length - is that the most common convention these days? And has the practice of generating portions of the address from your MAC address been universally (or at least mostly) abandoned?

The most common is more like /56, which is unfortunate because it means you have to deal with "2001:db8:2d4f:61XX::". It's still easy enough to read the subnet out of :6101:, :6102:, :6103: etc, but it does mean every address is longer :(

> And has the practice of generating portions of the address from your MAC address been universally (or at least mostly) abandoned?

Somewhere around mostly. Windows, OSX, and network-manager/dhcpcd/systemd-networkd on Linux all enable RFC7217 (uses a hash of your MAC and a secret value), temporary addresses (random addresses used for outbound connections) or both by default. Either of these will prevent people from seeing your MAC when you connect to them.

I'm not sure about mobile devices. I'd expect temporary addresses there, but also MAC randomization is a thing these days which would do the job too.

Notably absent from that list is Linux's in-kernel SLAAC client. Client-oriented distros often enable tempaddrs by default (or they install one of the network daemons that does it), but server-oriented distros tend not to.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#319

Post by Dagger2 »

yrjrjjrjjtjjr wrote: post #317
Dagger2 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

That's similar to, but not exactly what we were discussing. In particular 6in4 has a full ipv6 header after the ipv4 header, but here the suggestion was instead that supplementary infomation would follow. For example, the most significant address bits could be stored in the ipv4 header and the least significant ones in the new part.

That's not meaningfully different. It would just amount to a slightly less redundant representation of the same data -- the steps needed to deploy it would be the same, and you'd still have all the same issues of v4 hosts not understanding your format.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#320

Post by general1465 »

orangeboats wrote: post #296
general1465 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or use NAT, which is actually better solution, because misconfigured NAT won't expose your whole network, while misconfigured firewall will.
Post reply on HN