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

IPv6 Adoption Statistics

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#91

Post by danyork »

wbond wrote: post #42

IPv6 became available to me on my Comcast connection in the past six months, but I ended up disabling it at my local router. Unfortunately it seems in my area (North of Boston, MA) the IPv6 routing on Comcast's network is extremely spotty. Sometimes connections would time out on all different ports (22, 80, 443). This lead to a rather poor experience for members of my household. I ran into lots of issues with SSH. My…

Did you contact Comcast about this issue? I know some of the folks involved with the IPv6 rollout there and they are VERY focused on making the IPv6 experience as painless as possible.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#92

Post by lmm »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #90
IgorPartola wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you need is a firewall. NAT is not a security feature: it just has security implications. In IPv4 land, it's the firewall that does all the port forwarding, etc. anyways. If you are running IPv6, get a nice OpenWRT router, where the firewall is enabled by default.

What are the implications of using a laptop on a public Wifi where you don't control the router? (Or a friend's house, or anywhere else where the router isn't yours). OS-level firewall, I guess? Which maybe you should probably have anyway?

Windows gives you the choice when you connect to the Wifi - a kind of "is this network trusted?" dialogue.

Honestly the thing that makes sense is smarter applications. If you only need local connectivity, only listen on the loopback interface. If you open a port then you should expect to receive public requests on this port, and should have appropriate authentication in place.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#93

Post by cm2187 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #74

Every time IPv6 comes up on HN, around 50% of the comments seem to be about how IPv6 doesn't do NAT and how now every device you have is suddenly directly exposed to the internet. Let's clarify this a bit instead of answering individual commenters: In IPv6, just like in IPv4, you have a firewall. In Linux, you use ip6tables instead iptables, for example. This is what keeps your devices on your network safe. If you we…

But does UPnP work on firewalls?

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#94

Post by Alupis »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #90
IgorPartola wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you need is a firewall. NAT is not a security feature: it just has security implications. In IPv4 land, it's the firewall that does all the port forwarding, etc. anyways. If you are running IPv6, get a nice OpenWRT router, where the firewall is enabled by default.

What are the implications of using a laptop on a public Wifi where you don't control the router? (Or a friend's house, or anywhere else where the router isn't yours). OS-level firewall, I guess? Which maybe you should probably have anyway?

I think a lot of people don't trust the OS firewall due to many years of using Windows firewall. Windows firewall hasn't always been good, and is confusing still to this day for a lot of users (when I search for Firewall in my Windows 7 start menu, I get no less than 4 different options which all present me with different context menus, etc). Not to mention security product vendors still try to peddle their 3rd party firewall as being superior to the built-in firewall, which is rubbish other than maybe a usability standpoint (you either block something or you don't).

Compounded by the fact that most Windows boxes are "leaky" over the network and often have services talking without the user's knowledge.

This is changing, but it will take time to change user's minds. In the *nix world (which includes OSX), the desktop firewalls in my experience have been good for a very long time.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#95

Post by somesay »

citrin_ru wrote: post #87
IgorPartola wrote: post #74

Every time IPv6 comes up on HN, around 50% of the comments seem to be about how IPv6 doesn't do NAT and how now every device you have is suddenly directly exposed to the internet. Let's clarify this a bit instead of answering individual commenters: In IPv6, just like in IPv4, you have a firewall. In Linux, you use ip6tables instead iptables, for example. This is what keeps your devices on your network safe. If you we…

Privacy Extensions is dangerous: http://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-...

I haven't read the long article but it ends with:

> UPDATE (2014-09-06): As […] was the first to point out, RFC 7217 addresses all of my issues with “privacy” addresses. Let implementation come soon!

So, not backing your message.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#96

Post by tveita »

lotu wrote: post #25
cm2187 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's horrible. I don't even see the point. IPv4 and an IPv6 can cohabit. Why would they even alter your IPv4 access?

Presumably because they have run out of IPV4 addresses

Australia is under APNIC, which started rationing out its last /8 IP block in 2011.

Australia has a decent number of allocated addresses, around 2 per capita (compare with India, with 29 addresses per 1000 persons)[1], but presumably they will have to be reclaimed from existing users.

A newly started ISP in Australia could get a maximum of 2048 IPv4 addresses from APNIC. [2] If it needed more it would have to transfer them from another owner.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_IPv4_addre...

[2] http://www.apnic.net/community/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-exhausti...

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#98

Post by crazy8s »

Arnt wrote: post #69
chimeracoder wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both v6 and the linux stack are privacy-friendly. Yes and no. The privacy extensions will create new addresses, but they will always belong to the same /64. To my knowledge, TWC will allocate a /64, but there's no guarantee that power cycling your modem will generate a new /64[0]. I believe other ISPs work the same way - they may give you a new /64, but they're not required to and don't guarantee it in the SLA. And…

Well, I have two consumer DSL connections at home from different ISPs with completely independent infrastructure (a few billable hours pays for a year's redundancy). Both of them behave give me new, unpredictable v6 prefixes via DHCP every 2h/1d. So obviously not all other ISPs work the way yours does.

So, you are dependent on the ISP cooperating to give you privacy? What could possibly go wrong? Downvote me all you like guys. This just proved my point. NSA will love IPv6 adoption.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#99

Post by wjoe »

eXpl0it3r wrote: post #39
kancer wrote: post #32

I'm curious about the peaks and troughs in the graph. It seems the graph reaches a peak every week, does anyone know a reason for this?

Hehe this was an exercise question at my university. Look at the peaks again, zoomed in on a week, and you'll see that it's always on the weekend. This most likely means that more people have IPv6 connections at home (weekend), than they do at their work place (throughout the week).

You'll notice the same pattern on browser usage graphs - IE peaks during working hours, every other browser peaks on weekends and evenings.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#100

Post by danyork »

nandhp wrote: post #37

Anyone know what that weird spike was in the first week of October 4?

No idea... a number of us who watch IPv6 traffic stats have been wondering about that spike ever since it first appeared.

The spike does not appear in other data sets like that from APNIC:

http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XA

Post reply on HN