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

411–420 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#411

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

xp84 wrote: post #342
IgorPartola wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to pressure ISPs to support IPv6 is stupid but effective: 1. Sites that help shoppers choose can add a big visual red flag to any ISP that doesn’t support IPv6. Consumers don’t know what IPv6 is by and large but they do understand seeing a big red flag. 2. Same thing for websites. Add a banner that says “hey your ISP doesn’t support proper internet connectivity which this site utilizes. Contact them to let th…

From a US perspective, for your #1, the idea of people “shopping” for broadband, is astonishing. Most people here have available to them one single DOCSIS provider and that’s it. A few lucky ones have a FTTP option too, but that definitely not available to more than 25% of addresses. (It’s true that you can use cellular for your home internet, but I consider that extremely compromised.)

> Most people here have available to them one [wireline] provider [mostly DOCSIS] and that’s it.

Three FTTH providers deployed fiber infra here (thanks to BBB funds && before the WhiteHouse clawed those funds back).

The upshot of adding 3 wireline providers is this: I complained to one that I was switching service to the FTTH that had IPv6. My ISP quoted me a 40% lower rate and added a /38 IPv6 to their ASN.

It's like living in a fantasy.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#412

Post by Dagger2 »

wolvoleo wrote: post #276
lambdaone wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah but that ridiculous overdimensioning is something I object to. There's more IPs than is needed to give each grain of sand on this planet its whole IPv4-sized internet. That's just overkill. And the problem seems to be solving itself as the world is turning its back on globalism. China and North Korea already have separated themselves. Iran too. China still uses the same address space but it's not like there's op…

What ridiculous overdimensioning? L2 addresses are 64 bits, and L3 has to be bigger than L2 because L3 acts as an aggregation layer over L3. From staring at RFC 3194, I'd say the minimum size for L3 is about 80 bits.

v6 is 128 bits, which is the smallest power of 2 that's bigger than 80 and is only an extra 48 bits. Is that really enough to qualify for a claim of "ridiculous overdimensioning"? Especially when we really, really don't want to discover down the line that we made it too small and now need to migrate to another L3 protocol?

I get that the resulting number of IPs is big, but... so? Everything deals with the 128-bit long addresses, not the 2^128-entry long list of IPs. There's no need to care about the latter, just like there's no need to care about the number of potential RSA2048 keys or whatever.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#413

Post by mahboi »

tolien wrote: post #334
mahboi wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly assigned 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default 7. give every device its own public IP by default. Ipv6 did those anyway. Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0…

> 5. make addresses randomly assigned and > 7. give every device its own public IP by default. Both of these are optional. Don’t want them? Don’t use them - if you don’t configure them, it won’t happen. > 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default That’s not a new feature with v6. > Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 now. If anyone switches to the new thing, they know…

No I know it's point 4, that was the point. You can do forwards compatibility that way.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#414

Post by Dagger2 »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #340
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.

> ... but noooo we need to overengineer ... We need to pretend we overengineer. But some in the committee made it sure data exfil would be basically impossible to detect / block with IPv6, which all the others, always in love with the most rube-goldberg design possibles, loved the "overengineered" solution. With rube-goldberg designs, you can then always say stuff like: "The xz backdoor was TOTALLY unrelated to syste…

Data exfil is basically impossible to detect/block with IPv6? What? No. It's no easier or harder than it is in v4.

I'd also question the Rube-Goldberg-ness part, given how straightforward v6 is compared to the contortions we go through to get v4 to work in the face of address exhaustion.

(I guess I'll just ignore the systemd rant.)

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#415

Post by Dagger2 »

will4274 wrote: post #405
Dagger2 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it less effective on v6? You just ban the /48 or bigger.

It's difficult for servers to know how big client allocations are. With v4, pretty much everybody got /32s, but with v6, sizes vary. So you've got to start with small bans, and then switch to big bans later, but not too aggressively so you don't accidentally ban legitimate customers. It's a tricky balance.

You have to do that with range bans in v4 too, since you have no idea how big the pool of addresses a user can pull from is -- and with CGNAT in the picture you're kind of doomed to banning legitimate customers on v4 no matter what you do.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#416

Post by Dagger2 »

tgma wrote: post #321

Is this a failure? Absolutely. The article tries to brush this off, but there is no denying it. Operating without an IPv4 stack is not going to happen with v6.

I have no v4 on this machine. I'd disable the v4 stack on it if that was a thing Linux could do, but as it stands it's just sitting there doing nothing.

The thing you're claiming is not going to happen is something I'm already doing.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#417

Post by Dagger2 »

tormeh wrote: post #64
Hendrikto wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is IPv6 really that widely used? Mobile carriers use it almost exclusively, which is already a huge chunk of the internet, and newer ISPs are switching to it too. > I'm supporting both because I heard it's good to support both, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit is. The benefit is that you allow IPv4-only and IPv6-only clients to connect.

I accidentally became the user of an IPv6-only device a while back for some obscure reason I never could figure out. Let me tell you: There are no IPv6-only users. Absolutely nothing except Google, Facebook, and YouTube works. Any website not in the top 20 are IPv4-only. It was so bad I briefly thought I didn't have an internet connection at all. Anyone stuck on an IPv6-only connection would immediately cancel their…

I've heard plenty of accounts from people (and these were techy people even, not just the ones who only go to Facebook and think that's the Internet) who lost v4 and didn't even realize for days, so I'm not sure how true that is... but more to the point, when we say an ISP is v6-only it usually implies some form of backwards compatibility method for reaching v4 hosts over the v6-only service.

Commonly that's NAT64, which maps v4 into the v6 address space. The resulting service is v6-only (you only get a v6 address and have to talk v6 to the ISP) but you can reach v4 servers by talking to the v6 addresses to which they've been mapped.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#418

Post by Dagger2 »

jck86 wrote: post #138
lxgr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This becomes noticeable when pipelines on IPv6 connected servers suddenly have random request/post failures to public services. Then either the whole service is temporarily having issues or there are a few bad IPv6 endpoints while all the IPv4 endpoints are fine. Do you have examples for this? I've never experienced this, and I've been using IPv6 for years. Also, how can you be sure that the same request to IPv4 wo…

There were indeed consistent failures to specific IPv6 endpoints, clearly identifiable through curl, while all the IPv4 endpoints were ok. This happened with pypi (IPv6 BGP routing problem caused by a bad route from one of our peers combined with their fastly CDN not reply to us on IPv6 from the other side of the ocean for some weird reason), but also with yum and apt mirrors (seemingly random problems with the IPv6…

Try `ip link set mtu 1280 dev eth0` (or equivalent for your OS).

pMTUd breakage exists on v6 just like it exists on v4, and requires workarounds just like it does on v4. I get the impression a lot of people are applying a workaround on v4 but not on v6, then blaming the resulting failures on v6 without bothering to do any troubleshooting to figure out what's actually wrong.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#419

Post by Dagger2 »

liveoneggs wrote: post #184
lxgr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This becomes noticeable when pipelines on IPv6 connected servers suddenly have random request/post failures to public services. Then either the whole service is temporarily having issues or there are a few bad IPv6 endpoints while all the IPv4 endpoints are fine. Do you have examples for this? I've never experienced this, and I've been using IPv6 for years. Also, how can you be sure that the same request to IPv4 wo…

I saw HE stop routing to europe over ipv6 for an extended period of time two-ish years ago.

I'm in Europe and I use a tunnel from HE for v6. I feel like that's something I would have noticed if it was as widespread as you make it sound.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#420

Post by Dagger2 »

fegu wrote: post #382
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I agree. NAT, while occasionally limiting, was a godsend. Just imagine how the world would look if everyone out there was at the mercy of a well configured router with firewall.

I don't have to imagine, because that's how things are right now for the billions of people using v6, and it's fine.
Post reply on HN