Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Hits 50% IPv6

blog.apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#261

Post by ivlad »

gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #84
skywhopper wrote: post #15

I’ve yet to live anywhere where the available mainstream ISPs were willing or able to provide IPv6 service. I’d be happy to use it, if I were able. I also have built cloud infrastructure for multiple SaaS providers with tens of thousands of customers over the past decade. Only one customer I’m aware of has ever even requested IPv6 support. And if customers aren’t asking for it, my employers have never been interested…

> I’ve always found IPv6 to be overengineered and in many ways completely ridiculous. Most software continues to have horrible IPv6 support and documentation making it look more complicated, but the actual protocol is considerably simpler than IPv4. For example: 1. An IPv4 packet header is variable-length, and the checksum must be recalculated by every router because the TTL is included in the checksum. Whereas an IP…

NDP is not simpler than ARP. For one, NDP relies on link-local addresses to work which in turn relies on MAC multicast where ARP relies on MAC broadcast only.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#262

Post by gruez »

inigyou wrote: post #212
gruez wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

Well yeah, because they can't. Maybe if they could, they would do it more. You probably wouldn't want to host a permanent website from home, although some people do, but you could share a file. It would be popular with game servers, too.

>You probably wouldn't want to host a permanent website from home, although some people do, but you could share a file.

bittorent has been around for decades and nobody used it. They emailed files to themselves instead, or used dropbox. This all happened before the ipv4 shortage and people getting moved to CGNAT.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#263

Post by inigyou »

jlokier wrote: post #246
inigyou wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing about SLAAC is that it forces your ISP to give you at least 64 bits. Otherwise you know Comcast would only give out a /128 and charge you for more, so you'd use NAT at home just like IPv4.

Unfortunately SLAAC doesn't force upstream to provide a /64 universally. Some ISPs are reportedly giving out a /128, and SLAAC works adequately with a router performing IPv6 NAT, so those ISPs don't see a problem. Mobile phone as WiFi access point is another common way people access the net nowadays. I've occasionally seen permanent installations, with a phone taped to a window. I've never seen a mobile phone AP offe…

Well, my phone as access point grants an IPv6 public IP without NAT. There's a stateful firewall somewhere in the chain though.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#264

Post by rescbr »

gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #153
hdgvhicv wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) my stateful firewall is going to break most of that anyway 2) if cg nat is as popular as people claim then they won’t be doing that as it’s not an edge case

> 1) my stateful firewall is going to break most of that anyway Stateful firewalls and even regular NAT aren't much of an issue for P2P, but CGNAT is much more problematic [0]. > 2) if cg nat is as popular as people claim then they won’t be doing that as it’s not an edge case You'd hope, but people tend to be pretty slow to update their networking assumptions, so this is still pretty common. And it doesn't help that…

> people tend to be pretty slow to update their networking assumptions, so this is still pretty common.

My ISP doesn't do CGNAT in FTTH deployments, but I'm paying extra for a static IPv4 allocation anyway since I was increasingly getting hit with captchas every time my IPv4 rotated to flagged IPs that were trashed by my fellow subscribers with poor infosec practices - i.e. 99.9% of residential subscribers.

Once I got a static allocation, captchas are getting easy to pass.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#265

Post by brador »

inigyou wrote: post #258
brador wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why cap it at all? If you can process 512 then you get access to those, else you don’t. Let the free market decide where it’s comfortable like it did with wireless security.

What good is a standard if it doesn't make devices interoperable?

Catcher pitcher model. Pitchers pitch, catchers decide what to catch. You want access to the 512 space, pick up the 512+ capable device.

Free market decides where it lands.

If there’s nothing of value at 512, it’ll naturally flop.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#266

Post by frantathefranta »

inigyou wrote: post #125
TheDong wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the privacy issue? That the server can figure out that two computers in the same house are different since your laptop and phone no longer share the same ipv4 address but instead have two ipv6 address? Your phone and laptop can just have multiple ipv6 addresses and rotate through them regularly... as apple does by default https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/security/seccb625dcd9/... Security? NAT is not a f…

They used to recommend using the MAC address. This was ok 30 years ago when a computer sat in an office on a desk but it makes it very easy to fingerprint a moving computer as it moves across different networks. Using a random address (Privacy Extensions) solves this problem though, but do we expect everyone to know what that is and check it's enabled? Mine wasn't enabled by default (on Linux) and I only noticed when…

Could you publicly shame the distro that had that issue? Pretty sure it should be the default (on NixOS at least it is).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#267

Post by eddd-ddde »

wolvoleo wrote: post #253

I have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia. I wish they had just made an IPv5 though. With e.g. 6 bytes instead of 4. 65535 times the current internet should be plenty. I feel like IPv6 is overengineered and I'm glad it didn't take off yet. I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. If I ever do swi…

> I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing.

This is even easier with IPv6. At work we have a bunch of test devices, and you calculate the IPv6 from the device's serial number. Simple as that, no memorization at all.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#268

Post by sherburt3 »

inigyou wrote: post #242
sherburt3 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was saying adding a byte to the address so its a 40 bit address which would be two bytes to the header. Obviously it would still have the same issue where hardware and software would be incompatible and would need to be replaced but the same concepts that worked in IPv4 would work in my fake protocol instead of IPv6 where the network needs to be redesigned from the ground up. Also IPv6 addresses are ugly

How sure are you that 40 bits is a good number of bits? What's your justification? It takes over 30 years to deploy new bits, so you have to be really sure before you start that effort.

40 bits would've bought us a lot of time and would've kicked the can down the road several decades. People from the future would be much better equipped to design a new protocol because they understand their needs better.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#269

Post by wolvoleo »

eddd-ddde wrote: post #267
wolvoleo wrote: post #253

I have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia. I wish they had just made an IPv5 though. With e.g. 6 bytes instead of 4. 65535 times the current internet should be plenty. I feel like IPv6 is overengineered and I'm glad it didn't take off yet. I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. If I ever do swi…

> I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. This is even easier with IPv6. At work we have a bunch of test devices, and you calculate the IPv6 from the device's serial number. Simple as that, no memorization at all.

But for an IPv4 device I only have to remember one number :) And nothing to do with a long random serial number.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#270

Post by lambdaone »

wolvoleo wrote: post #253

I have it switched off on most networks and servers including my home network. I just don't need it here and I have zero to do with asia. I wish they had just made an IPv5 though. With e.g. 6 bytes instead of 4. 65535 times the current internet should be plenty. I feel like IPv6 is overengineered and I'm glad it didn't take off yet. I like being able to memorise IP addresses, it really helps testing. If I ever do swi…

A changeover to your IPv5 would be just as agonizing as the changeover to IPv6. A system with a larger address space is fundamentally uninteroperable with one with a smaller address space as there is nowhere to put the extra bits in the old protocol. The lack of motivation to move to the new protocol would also be just the same.

And as for memorization: do you actually memorize MAC addresses for your interfaces? The answer is no, you don't, becase ARP handles all that for you. Well, for IPv6, DNS, mDNS and so on handles all that for both your IPv4 and your IPv6 addresses - or should, if you know what you are doing, as memorizing IPs doesn't really scale beyond a few dozen machines.

Yes, IPv6 is overengineered, but it gets the pain of having larger addresses in the packet done once and for all - the odds of needing more than 128 bits in the rest of human history are very small indeed. And if something radically new needs to replace the current IPv6 architecture, which is much more likely, the extra address bits are already there; only 2000::/3 is assigned for public use so far, and the new addresses would fit in the current IPv6 packet format already.

Post reply on HN