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

Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

networkworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#131

Post by mSparks »

btilly wrote: post #120
trout wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a flame - your perspective is very typical for people that don't have a lot of experience with networking past the host or server level. (Very little experience with networking in the core, provider, or putting together network services architecture). 1. In theory the routing table with IPv6 can be smaller. The address design should be hierarchical, which means you should be able to have much fewer routes. It's t…

I only care about one point. That NAT is not a security feature. The original reason that I began using NAT was so that my ISP couldn't charge me per device. You just plugged in a NAT enabled router, and ran everything behind it. That became so ubiquitous that ISPs gave up on trying. My concern about IPv6 is that ISPs will want to go back to charging per device. I didn't like that then, and I don't want it now.

From a host perspective it's a great security feature. you have a local address means your host cannot be contacted from the outside world. You want your host to have an IPv6 address, VPN into an IPv6 provider.

The fact that demand for this is so low, just goes to show it's not needed at the moment.

In fact, I can't think of a single reason "why" IPv6 would be needed.

I definately don't want all my devices to have a web reachable address, far from it, total security nightmare.

one entry point - a VPN on IPv4 is just great thanks, secure and easy to manage. want to access my other devices, jump on the VPN.

I that sense, you can describe IPv6 security, as configuring your VPN with no password and letting anyone connect to it.

The other way to look at it, is the successsor to IPv4 is called tor.

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#132

Post by welterde »

mSparks wrote: post #130
vklj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every IPv4 packet needs a source address. If the client is IPv6, what is the IPv4 source address? You would want to assign an IPv4 address to the client transparently; and, since they're scarce, share it with several clients. That's what NAT64 does.

Why not just have the first 32 bits of ipv6 as equivelent to ipv4 so the ipv6 address of 66.249.73.108 is 66.249.73.108:0

What does that gain you over the mapped suffix, where you embed the IPv4 address at the end? (which is used by NAT64, etc.)

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#133

Post by mSparks »

welterde wrote: post #132
mSparks wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just have the first 32 bits of ipv6 as equivelent to ipv4 so the ipv6 address of 66.249.73.108 is 66.249.73.108:0

What does that gain you over the mapped suffix, where you embed the IPv4 address at the end? (which is used by NAT64, etc.)

because as I understand routing is still done from the MSB. So you leave the IPv4 existing infrastructure in place with no modification, but all those /32 addresses now become useful and all the existing IPv4 infrastructure and routing paths still work.

Rather than having to replace every single piece of hardware, software, nameserver and routing stack that works on IPv4. I could plug my IPv6 router into any ISP that gives a v4 address and have as many v6 addresses as could ever be needed.

It makes no sense to me why you would route IPv4 addresses on v6 LSB, it completely ignores current internet infrastructure and routing.

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#134

Post by welterde »

mSparks wrote: post #133
welterde wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that gain you over the mapped suffix, where you embed the IPv4 address at the end? (which is used by NAT64, etc.)

because as I understand routing is still done from the MSB. So you leave the IPv4 existing infrastructure in place with no modification, but all those /32 addresses now become useful and all the existing IPv4 infrastructure and routing paths still work. Rather than having to replace every single piece of hardware, software, nameserver and routing stack that works on IPv4. I could plug my IPv6 router into any ISP that…

What you propose already exists and is called Teredo,6rd or other tunneling protocols (6to4/6rd is probably the best fit with getting a /48 per IPv4 address). Except they again map the IPv4 space into the suffix of the IPv6 address (or do no mapping depending on the protocol).

But you don't want to do that forever as you are now paying for a IPv4 header PLUS some more headers instead of just one IPv6 header if you have native IPv6.

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#135

Post by mSparks »

welterde wrote: post #134
mSparks wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because as I understand routing is still done from the MSB. So you leave the IPv4 existing infrastructure in place with no modification, but all those /32 addresses now become useful and all the existing IPv4 infrastructure and routing paths still work. Rather than having to replace every single piece of hardware, software, nameserver and routing stack that works on IPv4. I could plug my IPv6 router into any ISP that…

What you propose already exists and is called Teredo,6rd or other tunneling protocols (6to4/6rd is probably the best fit with getting a /48 per IPv4 address). Except they again map the IPv4 space into the suffix of the IPv6 address (or do no mapping depending on the protocol). But you don't want to do that forever as you are now paying for a IPv4 header PLUS some more headers instead of just one IPv6 header if you ha…

No, I'm not talking about tunneling, I'm saying natively route at the v4 level, and the header will be less, because +160bit addresses will only be used when required.

so your routing table holds "66/4 port 1" ,"* port 2"

instead of hundreds of millions of entries to get the same thing by having the "66" >64 bits deep into the address (or worse ::66:* port 1, which breaks everything - hell how is this even done now?).

My point is, if the v4 address was in the MSB as standard, IPv6 would be working in virtually every single IPv6 device already.

As it is, we are all still using workarounds (and VPNs).

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#136

Post by welterde »

mSparks wrote: post #135
welterde wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you propose already exists and is called Teredo,6rd or other tunneling protocols (6to4/6rd is probably the best fit with getting a /48 per IPv4 address). Except they again map the IPv4 space into the suffix of the IPv6 address (or do no mapping depending on the protocol). But you don't want to do that forever as you are now paying for a IPv4 header PLUS some more headers instead of just one IPv6 header if you ha…

No, I'm not talking about tunneling, I'm saying natively route at the v4 level, and the header will be less, because +160bit addresses will only be used when required. so your routing table holds "66/4 port 1" ,"* port 2" instead of hundreds of millions of entries to get the same thing by having the "66" >64 bits deep into the address (or worse : :66:* port 1, which breaks everything - hell how is this even done now?…

> No, I'm not talking about tunneling, I'm saying natively route at the v4 level, and the header will be less, because 128bit addresses will only be used when required.

There are multiple issues with this. The first and probably most important one is that it doesn't address routing table fragmentation, which is pretty much solved with IPv6, because most ISPs will end up announcing on the order of 1 or 2 prefixes instead of dozens, which can't ever be aggregated (like is the case in the IPv4 world right now and will only get worse).

The second one is, that it doesn't gain you much in terms of deployment over IPv6 + tunnels.

> so your routing table holds "66/4 port 1" ,"* port 2" > instead of hundreds of millions of entries to get the same thing by having the "66" >64 bits deep into the address (or worse ::66:* port 1, which breaks everything - hell how is this even done now?).

Ok.. I have no idea what you are talking about here (mainly your notation is leaving me confused)..

> My point is, if the v4 address was in the MSB as standard, IPv6 would be working in virtually every single IPv6 device already.

Even in the presence of NAT?

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#137

Post by mSparks »

welterde wrote: post #136
mSparks wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not talking about tunneling, I'm saying natively route at the v4 level, and the header will be less, because +160bit addresses will only be used when required. so your routing table holds "66/4 port 1" ,"* port 2" instead of hundreds of millions of entries to get the same thing by having the "66" >64 bits deep into the address (or worse : :66:* port 1, which breaks everything - hell how is this even done now?…

> No, I'm not talking about tunneling, I'm saying natively route at the v4 level, and the header will be less, because 128bit addresses will only be used when required. There are multiple issues with this. The first and probably most important one is that it doesn't address routing table fragmentation, which is pretty much solved with IPv6, because most ISPs will end up announcing on the order of 1 or 2 prefixes inst…

the routing table is the same as now, just that the IPv4 address becomes the network which sub routes. IPv4 hardware doesn't need to care about sub routing.

my point is with that notation, right now we have say a google address of 66.249.73.108

How does IPv6 handle retaining all the existing work and man hours that has gone in to making packets go to the 66.249.73/24 network, as quickly as possible, from anywhere in the world.

It seems to me it expects every administrator from top to bottom to start from scratch, then everyone is scratching their heads as to why that hasn't happened.

>Even in the presence of NAT?

No, and this is a good thing, only IPv6 devices which have their own IPv4 address/network can issue IPv6 addresses on that network. This is a good thing. e.g. I get 66.249.73 to be 421D:4900:0:0 in hex.

In what universe does this need to be ditched and started from scratch, and making something:something:0042:1D49 re doing - by hand - every NS, routing table etc

Where did these hundreds of millions of higher level routing tables suddenly come from?

It keep being phrased as "what is the source address of an IPv6 host on an IPv4 network". It seems to me the answer should simply be "the first 32 bits of the IPv6 address" - and it seems stupid it's not structured like this.

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#138

Post by amaranth »

mSparks wrote: post #131
btilly wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only care about one point. That NAT is not a security feature. The original reason that I began using NAT was so that my ISP couldn't charge me per device. You just plugged in a NAT enabled router, and ran everything behind it. That became so ubiquitous that ISPs gave up on trying. My concern about IPv6 is that ISPs will want to go back to charging per device. I didn't like that then, and I don't want it now.

From a host perspective it's a great security feature. you have a local address means your host cannot be contacted from the outside world. You want your host to have an IPv6 address, VPN into an IPv6 provider. The fact that demand for this is so low, just goes to show it's not needed at the moment. In fact, I can't think of a single reason "why" IPv6 would be needed. I definately don't want all my devices to have a…

> one entry point - a VPN on IPv4 is just great thanks, secure and easy to manage. want to access my other devices, jump on the VPN.

There are 4 billion IPv4 addresses and 7 billion people on the planet. Before we even get into business use of IPv4 for servers and such we don't have enough addresses to do what you want.

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#139

Post by amaranth »

walshemj wrote: post #95
dasil003 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. Or maybe we will suffer tremendous amount of pain for some period of years after which we will have a much brighter future as opposed to an ipv7 that made too many concessions and left us with a mess that would be politically impossible to ever fix.

mm yes or maybe know when to let a flawed standard die when it is over taken by events. Even 20 years ago the Internet was obviously not going to be able go on as before where you could make major changes over a long weekend during the summer at the few core university's that where the the internet. That is why ipv6 should have been replaced.

Replaced with what? IPv6 has problems, sure, but the main problem is that IPv4 and IPv6 aren't compatible with each other. You're going to have that problem with any other replacement for IPv4 as well.

Re: Whatever happened to the IPv4 address crisis?

#140

Post by welterde »

mSparks wrote: post #137
welterde wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I'm not talking about tunneling, I'm saying natively route at the v4 level, and the header will be less, because 128bit addresses will only be used when required. There are multiple issues with this. The first and probably most important one is that it doesn't address routing table fragmentation, which is pretty much solved with IPv6, because most ISPs will end up announcing on the order of 1 or 2 prefixes inst…

the routing table is the same as now, just that the IPv4 address becomes the network which sub routes. IPv4 hardware doesn't need to care about sub routing. my point is with that notation, right now we have say a google address of 66.249.73.108 How does IPv6 handle retaining all the existing work and man hours that has gone in to making packets go to the 66.249.73/24 network, as quickly as possible, from anywhere in…

> No, and this is a good thing, only IPv6 devices which have their own IPv4 address/network can issue IPv6 addresses on that network.

So you will still need tunneling to make it work. As you will still have to run CGN to get all your customers online. Unless of course you do want to change the network infrastructure. At which point your solution gets much worse than plain and simple IPv6.

> It keep being phrased as "what is the source address of an IPv6 host on an IPv4 network". It seems to me the answer should simply be "the first 32 bits of the IPv6 address" - and it seems stupid it's not structured like this.

Sure.. that solves the routing problem (except for IPv4 routing table explosion), but doesn't solve the problem that IPv4-only hosts still can't talk to IPv5-hosts. You send [IPv4][IPv5] packet to IPv4 host. Huh? What's that IPv5 thing? Or the other way around.. IPv4 host sees AAA record (with IPv5) in DNS..

Your proposal solves nothing that can't also be done with IPv6 and tunnels if you are really keen on keeping your 5 old router running a few more months before throwing it away (which you can't do anyway, as your limited FIB size will force you to buy new hardware anyway, due to IPv4 route table fragmentation).

Post reply on HN