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

Are we past peak IPv4?

sidn.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#11

Post by Plasmoid »

Rapzid wrote: post #10
Plasmoid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks. My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work. If…

Couldn't you just expose those networks via non-overlapping blocks? Surely the entire private space wasn't spoken for.

We'd have to do private bi-directional NAT44. NAT is expensive to run and is one of those things that always breaks. It could work but it basically just makes permanent tech debt that will frustrate maintenance forever.

It also only really works when it's a 1:1 scale, as you add more networks the configuration grows with N^2.

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#12

Post by Plasmoid »

girvo wrote: post #7

My issue with IPv6 is online gaming doesn’t seem to support it at all. Valorant and similar online competitive games are IPv4 only; despite IPv6 having considering upsides for real time games. I think you could get real uptake from gamers if it was supported (due to possible latency benefits, even if they’re only small)

Gaming was late to IP networks too. I remember so many games would only support IPX networking even after the internet had taken off. Kali was a very popular IPX emulator for IP networks for years.

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#13

Post by hackmiester »

graphe wrote: post #5

I've always disable IPv6 on my router because I heard it wasn't secure since it was worthless to enable, and was another ingress into security. What benefits are there if any of using it?

I mean, I guess if all you care about is getting from point A to point B, a bullet train has no benefit over a steam locomotive.

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#14

Post by graphe »

hackmiester wrote: post #13
graphe wrote: post #5

I've always disable IPv6 on my router because I heard it wasn't secure since it was worthless to enable, and was another ingress into security. What benefits are there if any of using it?

I mean, I guess if all you care about is getting from point A to point B, a bullet train has no benefit over a steam locomotive.

There was zero speed difference or any changes I noticed last I configured my router, which is why it's still disabled. I haven't seen a single good use for enabling it.

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#15

Post by fulafel »

girvo wrote: post #7

My issue with IPv6 is online gaming doesn’t seem to support it at all. Valorant and similar online competitive games are IPv4 only; despite IPv6 having considering upsides for real time games. I think you could get real uptake from gamers if it was supported (due to possible latency benefits, even if they’re only small)

Xbox has been doing IPv6 for a long time I think. They've even advertised it: https://www.extremetech.com/internet/168394-xbox-one-will-be...

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#16

Post by Volundr »

Plasmoid wrote: post #6
Rapzid wrote: post #2

Eh, no plans to move to v6 as someone who works on SaaS. 3.60/month is cheap for the few public IPs most need. In my ISP/cloud provider days sure I spent a lot of time implementing v6. But it's just nowhere near worth the cost to mess with particularly when you still want/need public v4 along side. Also, I don't understand how v6 could be responsible for these post peak prices. Most everyone still has the v4 addresse…

I've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks. My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work. If…

Are you me? I had this exact experience, except after dealing with trying to resolve the conflicts with NATs and all the DNS pain that comes with a system having a different IP depending on where you are accessing it from, and the pain of re-iping an entire company, we actually DID go IPv6. All the offices still had their local IPv4 networks, but the mesh was IPv6 only. Turns out it was SIGNIFICANTLY less effort to get a new office IPv6 ready (usually just tweaking a couple toggles, occasionally replacing some ancient networking hardware) than resolving the IPv4 conflict.

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#17

Post by treffer »

profmonocle wrote: post #3

> IPv6 users now account for 45 per cent of Google visitors. It's hard to estimate how increasing percentage of users with IPv6 access is impacting the demand for public IPv4 addresses. My instinct is "not by a lot", but it's interesting to think about. Currently IPv6 does not allow you to simply do away with public IPv4 adderesses. On the ISP side that would mean providing a product that couldn't access a huge chunk…

These are implicit. The IPv4 space is hard money. Demand is high. So ISPs make some money having IPv4 space now.

I've definitely seen this. That's how IPv4 connectivity became an enterprise/business line feature on some ISPs.

A neglected detail about CGNAT is that it has lower the quality of IPv4 connectivity. Higher latency + more connectivity issues.

So if you offer a service then you should offer it on ipv6 due to that.

That's a really slow transition though. So I wouldn't expect this to kill off IPv4 any time soon (say 10y), but longterm it's been the trajectory already.

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#18

Post by girvo »

fulafel wrote: post #15
girvo wrote: post #7

My issue with IPv6 is online gaming doesn’t seem to support it at all. Valorant and similar online competitive games are IPv4 only; despite IPv6 having considering upsides for real time games. I think you could get real uptake from gamers if it was supported (due to possible latency benefits, even if they’re only small)

Xbox has been doing IPv6 for a long time I think. They've even advertised it: https://www.extremetech.com/internet/168394-xbox-one-will-be...

Yeah they’re the only one sadly. Riot doesn’t, Sony doesn’t, among others. I’m hopeful they do eventually follow suit

Re: Are we past peak IPv4?

#20

Post by Dylan16807 »

bastage wrote: post #8
Plasmoid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually got a really great example where IPv6 is a huge win. Connecting networks. My company has bought other companies in the past and inevitably we've had IP space conflicts. Work arounds involved requiring users to connect to different VPNs to use services running in different networks. The end result was that we had to renumber huge chunks of the company and patch up the routing tables to make this work. If…

It would also be very helpful if Mars had potable water and an electrical grid already set up for when we start living there.

Can you explain this analogy?

The way you structured it, I feel like the analogy for "living on Mars" would have to be "merging company networks", but that happens all the time.

If Mars is supposed to be IPv6 then I can't figure out what the utilities are supposed to represent.

Post reply on HN