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

301–310 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#301

Post by mahboi »

lambdaone wrote: post #270
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…

If ipv5 worked just like ipv4 except with a larger address space, it would be easier than moving to ipv6. I shouldn't have to change my address to switch for example.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#302

Post by mahboi »

the_real_cher wrote: post #285
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 dont think its that over engineered for what its capable of.

That's what overengineered implies, it's capable of things you don't need. The problem with v6 isn't 128-bit addrs though.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#303

Post by brewmarche »

vaylian wrote: post #295
tcfhgj wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lucky you, IPV6 indeed uses the same prefix everywhere: fe80::

Nitpick: The subnet fe80/10 is for link-local addresses ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6 ). However, it is not an analog to the RFC 1918 IPv4 subnetworks. 192.168/16 is a private IPv4 subnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#IPv4 ) and the equivalent for IPv6 is the fd00/8 subnet (RFC 4193).

And with ULAs (fd00::/8) you can pick your own prefix. Officially you should pick a random one to prevent collisions when you connect private networks, but you can choose something memorable if you don’t care about that

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#304

Post by jpc0 »

katbyte wrote: post #249
throw0101a wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn’t want a public ip for all the devices and computers on my home network either. Seems like a huge security risk. The real security risk is thinking that just because you have an internal RFC 1918 address space your security has improved. It's been a decade+ since a firewall being considered a castle/moat of security being best practice. Any IT person that thinks that if they see a device with an 10/8 (or 1…

Home networks are usually, nearly always, not run by anyone who is capable of “paying attention to the rest of their security controls”

Home networks are almost exclusively secure by default on any reasonable hardware.

The bigger issues is not remembering hostnames vs IP addresses.

Unless you have explicitly changed it what is the hostname of your mobile device? How about your PC?

The reality is with an even mildly competent DNS+DHCP implementation that is all you would need...

And mDNS otherwise but it seems only Apple ever bothered with that being default.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#305

Post by mahboi »

convolvatron wrote: post #245
sherburt3 wrote: post #210

Literally all we had to do was add a byte to IPv4 and we'd be done but noooo we need to overengineer the next protocol and make it as painful as possible to adopt.

this keeps coming up, if you add a byte to ipv4 you still have a transition problem. 5 byte machines can't talk to 4 byte machines. pretty much the only thing that solves is people not liking the :: syntax. the only other change is auto configuration, which...kind of doesn't matter? is that really causing problems?

Yeah but they could've picked something that at least lets the 4 byte host talk to a 5 byte one. Like if I have 8.8.8.8 and they want to give me 8.8.8.8.0, cool. Or make it 8 bytes instead of 5, same thing.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#306

Post by mahboi »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #40
Cider9986 wrote: post #8

How does IPV6 affect ip blocking. As a VPN user I wish it wasn't used as a metric for sites shaking you down.

I assume for aggressive blocking the only prefix size will change. What is a /32 for IPv4 might become a /64 or smaller for IPv6.

Shouldn't blocking v6 also be based on /32 if you want the attacker's cost to be the same?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#307

Post by mahboi »

throw0101a wrote: post #217
commandersaki wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was also predicted that the address exhaustion problem would be averted, in fact that was the purpose of v6. It failed to deliver.

> It was also predicted that the address exhaustion problem would be averted, in fact that was the purpose of v6. It failed to deliver. It was averted: how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet? Do you think that would have been practicable without IPv6? Comcast—not even mobile—had to move to IPv6 on their landline ISP business because they ran out of IPv4 addresses for TR-069: the…

> how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet

Only because of NAT. Those cellular CGNATs are v6 on the inside but v4 on the outside (well also v6 but customers need the v4 more).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#308

Post by mahboi »

baby_souffle wrote: post #250
commandersaki wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point. Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around. As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest…

> NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhausted we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point. This is factually difficult to support. (Sent from my iPad which doesn’t have an ipv4 address… to hacker news which has an ipv6 address)

You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#309

Post by kstrauser »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #272
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…

> NAT is not a firewall, I've only read that on HN, I've never heard this anywhere else. Since it's been a good 20+ years since my CCNA (and haven't needed to renew it since), could you please offer a real-world example where NAT is not a firewall w/ practical examples relating to 99.9% of cases of home use? I just can't get why people say this a lot here. NAT works and passes the grandma test. If grandma buys a crap…

Grandma’s ISP can send RFC 1918 traffic to her router and likely be able to directly connect to every internal host. You should have learned in your CCNA training that NAT makes it harder to send inbound traffic to a system, but doesn’t by itself provide the filtering that a firewall does.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#310

Post by convolvatron »

mahboi wrote: post #305
convolvatron wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this keeps coming up, if you add a byte to ipv4 you still have a transition problem. 5 byte machines can't talk to 4 byte machines. pretty much the only thing that solves is people not liking the :: syntax. the only other change is auto configuration, which...kind of doesn't matter? is that really causing problems?

Yeah but they could've picked something that at least lets the 4 byte host talk to a 5 byte one. Like if I have 8.8.8.8 and they want to give me 8.8.8.8.0, cool. Or make it 8 bytes instead of 5, same thing.

well, if you want to add an extra byte you kinda have a problem, since v4 is fixed format and is actually cooked into hardware in a lot of places. so if you want to keep v4 mostly untouched you have to use an option, which is going to be pretty slow on the backbone.

you can send a packet from an extended address host to a vanilla v4 host if you map the address space into a range like you suggest..but that v4 host just has no way of sending a message back..so its kinda useless

Post reply on HN