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

India is almost 80% IPv6

apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#111

Post by bauruine »

Bilal_io wrote: post #84
lvass wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even though they now have a public IPv6 address, the router's firewall should block incoming connections to it by default. That's the case for my router, but to be sure you should check it yourself for yours This is why I won't enable IPv6 unless ISPs dramatically change how their hardware works. My ISP-issued modem+router doesn't even have a way to disable routing or automatic updates. I can test the firewall today…

The comment you're replying to is referring to Homeland. If all you have is an ISP-issued device, then you don't need to worry about it, just use the defaults. Also, I doubt ISPs will ever change their home routers to default to IPv6 because of the complexity it'll add to customer support with no extra benefits.

It's not the router that decides which IP version to use but the operating system and AFAIK all default to IPv6 if they have an address. And yes many ISPs have activated IPv6 by default that's the reason we see 80% IPv6 usage here. It's not because 80% of the users have actively activated it. Most of them have no idea what an IP even is.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#112

Post by terom »

cebert wrote: post #52
alserio wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask you why? What makes using ipv6 more expensive?

I have no basis for this, but I would have to imagine router tables are significantly larger with IPv6, hence higher costs due increased complexity.

It's intended to be the opposite with fewer IPv6 prefixes needed, compared to the level of fragmentation for global IPv4 deployments combining many smaller prefixes to scavenge enough address space.

IPv4 930k -> 515k aggregated https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/

IPv6 161k -> 86k aggregated https://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/

Both of those are nothing compared to the requirements for CGNAT, tracking each individual TCP session.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#113

Post by api »

pantalaimon wrote: post #54
api wrote: post #51

Meanwhile in the US I recently bought a brand new Netgear Nighthawk router and V6 was disabled. To enable it you have to go into “advanced.” Apparently this is now common. It’ll hold back adoption even more since most people do not change defaults.

There are new TP-Link access points that don’t even have the option to enable IPv6

People should return those as defective.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#115

Post by samarthr1 »

terom wrote: post #112
cebert wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no basis for this, but I would have to imagine router tables are significantly larger with IPv6, hence higher costs due increased complexity.

It's intended to be the opposite with fewer IPv6 prefixes needed, compared to the level of fragmentation for global IPv4 deployments combining many smaller prefixes to scavenge enough address space. IPv4 930k -> 515k aggregated https://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ IPv6 161k -> 86k aggregated https://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/ Both of those are nothing compared to the requirements for CGNAT, tracking each individual…

Ah, but tracking each session is needed for censorship purposes no?

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#116

Post by ornornor »

16th_hop wrote: post #101
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the dumb naive question of the day: Why didn't "ipv6" simply get implemented as: "Well, our ipv4 addresses of 4x8bit, well, we'll just switch those to 4x64bit or whatever." Then it becomes like a gradual y2k migration. Old servers could be addressed by the new ones, and if the old ones didn't want to address the new ones, well, that was their problem. You didn't need new infra, addresses, etc, you simply upgra…

This is actually one of the most interesting parts of the Urbit project IMO -- their addressing scheme has 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 address support. The addresses are displayed in memorable terms that fit into an astromoical-styled system. A /8, an example being "~rel" (one syllable names based out of a bank of 256 memorable 3-letter syllables)-- these are galaxies and are extremely rare (128 galaxies total). Then you have…

I had no idea about urbit. Thanks for sharing.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#117

Post by kanonieer »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #30
tmikaeld wrote: post #11

I'm ashamed at our countrys paltry 14% (Sweden). ISPs don't want to spend money exchanging routers. There's a per-country map here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-...

> I'm ashamed Slightly off-topic, but what should you be ashamed by something that is totally independent from you, that you can't control in any way? Personally I'm ashamed only if I do something wrong myself.

Same reason why people are proud of things that are totally outside of their influence: tribalism, nationalism etc.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#118

Post by Dagger2 »

lvass wrote: post #105
MaKey wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a specific reason you trust your router for IPv4 but not for IPv6 traffic? IPv6 privacy extensions should be enabled by default on most devices. So even in the unlikely case of a device being exposed, someone has to know the temporary IPv6 address and then try to access it while it is still in use. This device would also have to run a vulnerable service on some port that the attacker has to know. All in all,…

"Most devices", "should be, "unlikely case", "pretty unlikely". That's my impression too, and none of those are good enough. I have many internet connected devices (appliances) and really don't want to worry about someone remotely accessing them. Behind the NAT it just isn't possible.

It is possible -- NAT won't protect you from inbound connections. Even using RFC1918 addresses on your LAN won't protect you from all inbound connections. You need a firewall for that.

If you don't trust the ISP device to firewall, then you can't trust it even for v4. You need to run your own router.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#119

Post by Dagger2 »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #106
Epuineeb5 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why didn't the original group simply expand the size of the numbers in the address quads? Almost all fields in IP header have fixed size - so it doesn't really matter that you just change address size - it is already a new and incompatible protocol. And adoption of IPv6 wasn’t so slow due to its design or any technical properties. Simply no one wanted to do additional work as long as supporting only IPv4 worked fin…

But IPV6 always had an "Internet2" vibe to it between dual stacks, different syntax/separator, hostility towards NAT firewalls. Like they wanted to be completely separate and force everyone to move to them. And this is back in the day when another stack meant another hunk of infrastructure, probably new switches, etc, not just a bunch of VMs allocated via API in IaaS. As in they didn't even seem to consider that mayb…

No such thing as a "NAT firewall"... and v6 was designed this way because nothing else really works.

Almost all existing code that was written to handle v4 was written to handle addresses of exactly 32 bits, not addresses of arbitrary length. Longer addresses therefore required writing new code to handle them. v6 is close enough to v4 that you can write code that can handle both families, but neither the existing code or the new code was under the control of the people designing v6.

You use dual stack because it's maximally compatible with existing devices and code. There are plenty of ways to run single-stack v6 if you want to, but they all have some compatibility issue or another (and the compatibility issues stem from the way v4 was designed, not the way v6 was designed).

v6 addresses use : rather than . because they could otherwise be confused with DNS. For example, a string ending in ".be" could have been a v6 address or a subdomain of the .be ccTLD.

IP packets do start out with a version field, so your "one if-then to identify the packet type" requirement is exactly what v6 already does.

> Or simply have the ipv4 as the first part and the wrapped packet has another 128-256 addressing bytes.

You've invented 6to4. It already exists, but people seem to prefer native.

Re: India is almost 80% IPv6

#120

Post by qalmakka »

sharikous wrote: post #57
qalmakka wrote: post #16

Meanwhile in Italy basically nobody (except Sky and Iliad) offers any support for IPv6. TIM had a very poorly functioning technical trial of native IPv6 12 years ago, and while it still exists (and sucks) it only works on ADSL (not VDSL, 20Mbps ADSL). I guess that carriers have just too many IPv4 to throw around, mobile connections are all NATted with no sign of any future roll-out of IPv6 in sight.

It goes up fast when it starts. In Israel it was like that 4 years ago and now it's green on the map.

I kinda doubt it. Only new ISPs are rolling out IPv6 ATM, because they know they will not be able in the future to get enough IPv4 to satisfy demand. Everyone else is sitting on a crapload of IPv4 and will never bother to implement IPv6 until it is mandated by either the Italian government or the EU, whichever comes first.
Post reply on HN