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

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#121

Post by ay »

vegardx wrote: post #109
ay wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you install MySQL locally, you should not have it listen on any address other than the loopback by default. And when you do expose it, if you care about security, you should configure the appropriate iptables along the way there and then, rather than relying on a magic box somewhere upstream filtering the packets. This can be doubly useful if the box in question your laptop which you carry around in various, poten…

I was just using MySQL as a hypothetical example, as they listen on all interfaces by default with packages supplied by Oracle. Next time you're on a tech conference, do a scan on the local network. My point was that by his standard he would just let it listen on all interfaces because in his own word, nobody would find it. Which sounds very naive.

Okay then I think we were in violent agreement.

I was arguing the whole "listen on all interfaces by default" is wrong - if one needs to expose the app, they should do so explicitly, and you did the same.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#122

Post by justincormack »

IgorPartola wrote: post #114
justincormack wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do rate limit you to around 4Mb I believe so you might want to not ship your netflix over them, which it will unless you are careful.

Reference? I couldn't find anything about it, and have been watching Netflix through them for at least three years now.

Thats what a friend claimed, although HE seem to deny it. I had to disable it for Netflix as it got geolocation wrong, so probably never really tested it.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#123

Post by kalleboo »

justincormack wrote: post #77
kalleboo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The firewall on a local machine might suffer from exploits, thus still allowing access. Is a updated firewall from Apple, Microsoft or ipfw more or less likely to suffer from exploits than a cut-rate device from ASUS, Netgear or Linksys that hasn't been updated in years? > Or I might want some services open to my lan and only a smaller subset opened to the public (something the personal firewalls built into many OS…

The idea is that it can be turned off from the machine itself, so eg if you get hacked via a website or email, your firewall might get disabled, while another box would also need to be hacked. (Of course things like UPNP give the machines control over the router so making this moot, which is why I dodnt run them).

> Of course things like UPNP give the machines control over the router so making this moot

Yep this was exactly my point

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#124

Post by Arnt »

samuelsmith wrote: post #112
Arnt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. We're dependent just like we were on IPv4, except that the ISPs' address pools are bigger. The same things can go wrong.

That sounds a bit disingenuous. IPv4 was always on a forced rotation because a) limited address space and b) ISPs wanted to milk customers for static IP charges. IPv6 eliminates a). That leaves b) which isn't really a factor on mobile devices. It really is a permanent cookie if the ISP decides to implement it that way. I can't say I trust AT&T and Verizon after their 'header enrichment' shenanigans.

What do those two ISPs on another continent have to do with my argument?

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#126

Post by gonzo »

vegardx wrote: post #26
pilif wrote: post #24

After I switched ISP to one that supports native IPv6 (and generally is pure awesome), I noticed that my traffic at home went to about 50% IPv6, also thanks to YouTube supporting V6. I also casually noticed that all but one address in my "Account Activity" view in Gmail are IPv6 addresses (ironically, the mobile phone got the one single IPv4 address in that list over 4G). V6 works nicely and totally transparent causi…

While having an unique address per application can be cool, I don't like the premise that this is used as some sort of security layer. We have firewalls. We know how they work and how to implement them well. For all intents and purposes a typical NAT-setup is bascially wide open from the inside and out. You can do the same with a few simple rules on a firewall.

> We have firewalls. We know how they work and how to implement them well. For all intents and purposes a typical NAT-setup is bascially wide open from the inside and out.

Now consider source routing.

Yup.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#127

Post by wbond »

danyork wrote: post #91
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.

No, after spending 3 weeks and 6 hours on the phone to add the correct TV to my account I gave up spending time with Comcast.

If you happen to know a competent contact that I can provide info to, I'd be happy. But I am not going to waste my time trying to get through to them via normal channels.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#128

Post by jbrzozowski »

wbond wrote: post #127
danyork wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, after spending 3 weeks and 6 hours on the phone to add the correct TV to my account I gave up spending time with Comcast. If you happen to know a competent contact that I can provide info to, I'd be happy. But I am not going to waste my time trying to get through to them via normal channels.

@wbond I run the program at Comcast, want to ping me offline?

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#129

Post by c0nsumer »

ay wrote: post #80
c0nsumer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it's anything that's slow... When I've got a tunnel live, Google properties and Facebook are pretty much unusable. Weirdly, sometimes it'll work fine... Other times it won't. (The server I'm testing against with is my personal site, https://nuxx.net , which has great IPv6 connectivity already. I just don't want to tunnel my home connection through it because that'll seriously push up the bandwidth use…

This description might also match a partly-working path MTU discovery (a possibly too-high rate of ICMP egress from HE end to content sites, blocked by rate-limiter on the HE device). In IPv4 you do not notice it (it almost never triggers) because there is less tunnels and also because generally everyone does MSS clamping. In IPv6, you have the tunnel and not necessarily MSS clamping. Two ways to tackle it: - configu…

So... Changing the MTU didn't help. Even at the minimum of 1200 I still had issues. Sometimes pings (even small 60 byte ones) would be fast, other times they'd be upwards of one second. Not sure what's going on yet, as I've put working on this aside for now.

Re: IPv6 Adoption Statistics

#130

Post by ay »

c0nsumer wrote: post #129
ay wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This description might also match a partly-working path MTU discovery (a possibly too-high rate of ICMP egress from HE end to content sites, blocked by rate-limiter on the HE device). In IPv4 you do not notice it (it almost never triggers) because there is less tunnels and also because generally everyone does MSS clamping. In IPv6, you have the tunnel and not necessarily MSS clamping. Two ways to tackle it: - configu…

So... Changing the MTU didn't help. Even at the minimum of 1200 I still had issues. Sometimes pings (even small 60 byte ones) would be fast, other times they'd be upwards of one second. Not sure what's going on yet, as I've put working on this aside for now.

Okay, if there is a jitter on individual pings, it is certainly not the PMTUD-related - and if there is no packet loss, then it is shaping - either intentional, or some middlebox can't cope with the load.

When using AICCU (sixxs) - were you using protocol 41 or the UDP-based encap ? if protocol 41, then experimenting with switching to UDP might be interesting.

Post reply on HN