Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? One nine isn’t good enough for you?
You guys have nines?
[deleted]
IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
541–550 of 643 posts
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's only true for smalltime home networks. Try to merge 2 company IPv4 networks with overlapping RFC1918 ranges like 10.0.0.0/8. We'll talk again in 10 years when you are done sorting out that mess ;) Look, I've been doing IPv6 for 20 years, starting with a 6to4 tunnel and then moving to HE.net before getting native connectivity. I'm probably one of the first people who started using Asterisk for SIP on an actua…
Well, I can do that with OpenWRT, no idea which prosumer devices already implement this, but it isn't rocket science: Announce the Prefix of the currently active connection, invalidate the other one. Will interrupt all your TCP connections, but they are toast anyways, most software should handle this just fine. It's quite the same as a Wifi-to-Cellular handover.
> Announce the Prefix of the currently active connection, invalidate the other one
And this doesn't actually work. Prefix deprecation is a best-effort feature that is not implemented correctly in tons of devices, including such rarely used niche operating systems as macOS. It even technically violates RFC4862 (section 5.5.3).
As usual, IETF only recently woke up to that reality: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8978
I highly recommend actually trying what I proposed. Not in a theoretical hand-wavy way, but actually setting it all up and verifying that it works. I did not pose this challenge in a "gotcha" way. I really was not able to make it work cleanly with either Mikrotik or OpenWRT routers.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been there. Management was fine with the testing but it added too much overhead for nearly no benefit to us. One more thing to troubleshoot at 3 am, one more thing to teach to a disinterested tier 1 support team, one more thing for Chrome to be weird about, hundreds more rules to manage in a hostile load balancer, logging tools that don't understand ipv6. Turned it off. End customer asked why the site got a litt…
That's why ipv6 migration should be government mandated. Then it becomes just the cost of doing business
[deleted]
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPv6 is a recursive WTF. It might _look_ like a conservative expansion of IPv4, but it's really not. A lot of operational experience and practices from IPv4 don't apply to IPv6. For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. In IPv6 each host has multiple global addresses. But if your global connection goes down, these addresses…
> For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean. This is a troll right? NAT is a lot of things, but "simple and clean" is definitely not one of them. It causes complications at every step of the process. Pure IPv6 is so much cleaner. I will say that DHCP6 is probably misnamed. It does not fill the same niche has IPv4 DHCP, and th…
> This is a troll right? NAT is a lot of things, but "simple and clean" is definitely not one of them. It causes complications at every step of the process.
I invite you to try this challenge: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47796992
This is something that can be done with consumer-grade routers in _minutes_ with zero configuration from endpoints apart from the usual WiFi password.
NAT is a _superior_ design in practice. It can be chained transparently, it moves all the stateful routing complexity to the border router, it enforces network isolation. And most importantly, IT ACTUALLY WORKS.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#545Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely don’t understand this. The concepts are nearly identical between the two.
Hum no, to me they are orthogonal. v4 was built around the idea of multiple free standing networks linked by gateways. v6 was built around the idea of a universal network. I dont care about what your LAN adress space look like when I'm in my LAN, because we are not in the same v4 network. I am sovereign in my network. With v6, everyone is effectively in the same network. I have to ask my ISP for a prefix that he will…
> v4 was built around the idea of multiple free standing networks linked by gateways.
I don't think this is what v4 was built around, but rather what v4 turned into.
CIDR wasn't introduced until 1993. NAT in 1994. Both to handle depleting IP addresses.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excuse me. Zero nines. Or two nines if you relax your definition of where they are in the number. https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/116334321751266751
we shut down our production every day from 2pm till 5pm for a siesta :)
You jest... (but probably not!)
I remember when I was first using my alma mater's online sign up for classes in the very early 2000s, their class sign up site had office hours.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem has nothing to do with over engineering, or really anything to do with the actual contents of the IPv6 standard. It is just devilishly hard to make any backwards-incompatible change to layer 3, and address expansion is always going to be backwards incompatible.
There were some choices of v6 that made it extra hard, like declaring all v4 addresses no longer valid in v6, or making slaac default
IPv4 addresses are in fact a subspace of IPv6 (that's NAT64). They were not by fiat declared invalid. The actual thing I think you're complaining about - the necessity for NAT64 at all - is unavoidable, because you need a NAT/protocol-translation layer for packets to actually move between the new address space and the old one.
SLAAC-by-default is not, in my experience implementing IT automation, an actual barrier for adopters. You have a router sending out RS instead of a DHCP server, to an admin this is not a meaningful change.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#548It has barely hit 50% and it's already plateauing. This adoption rate is ridiculous despite basically all network interfaces supporting it. I thought I would see IPv6 take over in my lifetime as the default for platforms to build on but I can see I was wrong. Enterprise and commercial companies are literally going to hold back internet progress around 60 to 75 years because it's in their best interest to ensure users…
Nearly all ISPs these days are deploying IPv6 for their mobile networks and core service networks, especially in less developed markets^1. The reason is simple, a cost justification. What doesn't exist is a cost justification for Enterprises to deploy IPv6, and for ISPs to deploy Residential / Corporate Internet IPv6. IMO with the right market conditions, IPv6 could spread really fast within 6-24 months. For example,…
Imagine if one day someone came up with a "better" way to chew food, but you had to learn how to do a super complex jaw movement and it wouldn't work in restaurants. It has no obvious benefit to you. The only motivation is that a small group of obsessively passionate (but not in a good way) people say at some unknown point in the future food won't be edible anymore.
IPv6 just tried to do too much so it failed at everything. Putting letters in IP addresses made it near impossible to remember what your network settings were supposed to be.
It is nothing short of a miracle that devices can even get IPv6 addresses. SLAAC was supposed to replace DHCP, but it couldn't provide DNS server addresses. DHCPv6 was introduced to replace SLAAC, but this time they forgot to add a way to communicate a default route. This lead to Cisco, Microsoft, and Google all taking completely different approaches, and the IETF helpfully blocking any efforts at cross vendor standardization because of v6 zealots.
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
With your own /24 you can get an AS number and potentially BGP multi-home it.
Yes, I've already done that. I have the /24 tunneled to my home network.
That would be so cool to see your own AS in the global BGP table. I suppose I could still try this using IPv6
Re: IPv6 traffic crosses the 50% mark
#550It seems the biggest hurdle to IPv6 adoption is legacy software and hardware. Anything new that gets built can easily be v6 only.