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

Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 200 posts

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#141

Post by detaro »

givinguflac wrote: post #131
modeless wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, OnHub doesn't support IPv6?! That's inexcusable. There's no reason IPv6 couldn't "just work" too. Google Wifi had better support IPv6 at launch.

If you require IPv6 so crucially, you probably shouldn't be using consumer grade gear.

There are quite a few providers in the world that run Dual-Stack Lite (native IPv6, IPv4 is tunneled to provider-run NAT gateways) and they all hand out consumer-grade gear.

Since the OnHub only comes with Ethernet you'd have to put something between it and the wire anyways of course, but it then has to be more than a dumb modem, and you'd be forcing all traffic through the tunnel.

IPv6 isn't without problems, but many people use it without noticing, through consumer devices way cheaper than this. The ones complaining the most are the enthusiasts which suddenly can't reach their home server via IPv4 anymore.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#142

Post by lucb1e »

eridius wrote: post #82

I'm surprised nobody here has yet questioned the wisdom of allowing Google access to literally all of your internet traffic. This is actually a commercial product that you pay money for, so maybe they're all aboveboard here, but with Google's history of trying to get as much personal data as possible about everybody makes me unwilling to trust them with something like this. On a different note, is there any reason wh…

> I'm surprised nobody here has yet questioned the wisdom of allowing Google access to literally all of your internet traffic.

This is what I think of every time I hear of Google Fiber.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#143

Post by lucb1e »

rootbear wrote: post #90
wmf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no Web interface; you really do have to use the app.

Well, that's a deal breaker. I don't own an Android device. There's no excuse for not providing a web interface.

I own an Android device and it's still a dealbreaker.

I thought it was cool to deploy a web application from my smartphone but after having done it once or twice, and two or three times having to hotfix production stuff from my smartphone, I can say it's not a device made to configure anything except alarm clocks.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#144

Post by tomschlick »

ryanlol wrote: post #130
modeless wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Why does IPv6 availability matter here? The amount of users that need, want or even directly benefit from IPv6 is vanishingly small.

Because the quicker we adopt it the better.

The shittiest of routers support it so when you get one from a major internet company you should expect that it has support for an internet protocol which has been out for 18 years.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#145

Post by ryanlol »

tomschlick wrote: post #144
ryanlol wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does IPv6 availability matter here? The amount of users that need, want or even directly benefit from IPv6 is vanishingly small.

Because the quicker we adopt it the better. The shittiest of routers support it so when you get one from a major internet company you should expect that it has support for an internet protocol which has been out for 18 years.

Doesn't qualify as "inexcusable" for me, sorry.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#146

Post by deathanatos »

ryanlol wrote: post #130
modeless wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Why does IPv6 availability matter here? The amount of users that need, want or even directly benefit from IPv6 is vanishingly small.

I disagree. Directly, yes, the average user doesn't care. But application developers care; peer-to-peer protocols become a lot trickier with IPv4 due to the pervasive deployment of NAT; two machines ostensibly on the Internet can't connect to each other, requiring instead the use of STUN servers, which then requires infrastructure somewhere, or just doing it client-server, or some mix like having "supernodes" (like Skype, prior to MS tearing it out) that route traffic for NAT'd devices.

The ability to actually connect arbitrary devices, I hope, will be something that people will take advantage of. I know for many game servers I set up with siblings, the ability to not need to mess with a router's crappy "port forwarding" would be a welcome change. (Even if I had to mess w/ some local firewall, but that can perhaps be much more tightly integrated or at least, a better UX.)

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#147

Post by thwarted »

jrockway wrote: post #123
modeless wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

IPv6 is important, but it's not like your ISP will lower your bill if you forego IPv4, and it's not like there are IPv6-only sites. If I recall correctly, I have to pay _extra_ for an IPv6 address.

IPv4 addresses have been more expensive than IPv6 subnets on every dedicated uplink I've gotten prices for over the last two years. In fact, an IPv6 /56 is usually free, or cheap enough to be effectively free since the fee is mainly a NRC for the time to set up the route, if you ask for it and the provider supports IPv6. In contrast, IPv4 addresses often incur a MRC based on the number of usable addresses you request.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#148

Post by kardashian007 »

givinguflac wrote: post #131
modeless wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, OnHub doesn't support IPv6?! That's inexcusable. There's no reason IPv6 couldn't "just work" too. Google Wifi had better support IPv6 at launch.

If you require IPv6 so crucially, you probably shouldn't be using consumer grade gear.

Gotta love easily NSA-dioded consumer gear which falls over under load, reboots randomly and doesn't play nice with standards.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#150

Post by IMcD23 »

acdha wrote: post #137
eridius wrote: post #82

I'm surprised nobody here has yet questioned the wisdom of allowing Google access to literally all of your internet traffic. This is actually a commercial product that you pay money for, so maybe they're all aboveboard here, but with Google's history of trying to get as much personal data as possible about everybody makes me unwilling to trust them with something like this. On a different note, is there any reason wh…

I realize it's popular to peddle conspiracy theories about Google in some circles but think about just how many people use Google search, Gmail, Chrome, Android, etc. – do you really think their choice of routers matters more? There's also an inconvenient truth that such problems are greatly hindered by … Google in their prominent role improving security for average users. If their goal was to spy on people, they'd b…

None of those technologies you listed make it harder for Google to collect information from you, but instead make it harder for 3rd parties to intercept that data in transit.
Post reply on HN