Live data from Hacker News

IP Addresses Through 2025

potaroo.net

151–158 of 158 posts

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Did you disable UPnP on your router? If not, any device behind the router can simply ask the router to open a port, typically without authentication, bypassing this "firewall" completely. - TURN and STUN trivially bypass this side-effect, and a side effect of that is a third party has to often be involved, which can be collecting data later leaked or used against you. - The monstrosity of NAT is that it's the core…

That third party involved is my ISP which will see the packets anyway, even if NAT is not used. And the attacks you mentioned are initiated from the inside. Not what I stated, that NAT is a sort of a firewall for incoming connections.

> That third party involved is my ISP which will see the packets anyway, even if NAT is not used.

The ISP doesn't meaningfully see packets as long as encryption is used. It sees stuff that if analyzes can be used to make guesses, but that's about it. I probably should have used a better term than "third party" but I was meaning services that collect data on everyone like Facebook, Twitter, etc. These services actually receive meaningful, trackable, surveillable data about you and they would not have to receive as much if NAT wasn't a thing.

Inside attacks are important. If you don't care about those, saying you like NAT because of any security benefit doesn't make sense.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#152
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even 15 years ago IPv6 was much worse than IPv4 for most of the people. Only when the mobile operators has started to insist on it then the usage started to grow to significant numbers. Which showed the real problem with IPv6: lack of compatibility with IPv4. That was absolutely possible 30 years ago, but the designers decided that it would just complicate things.

I am tired of people claiming that you can make a "new Internet protocol that is compatible with IPv4". No, backwards compatibility is not the problem here: IPv6-only hosts can easily connect to IPv4 hosts. Just append "64:ff9b::" to an existing IPv4 address, like so: 64:ff9b::8.8.8.8. Even prior to NAT64, we have plenty of schemes like 6to4 to bridge IPv4 and IPv6. But no IPv4 hosts can ever connect to IPv6 hosts, o…

I think the people complaining about compatibility are more talking about the concepts in IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 could have been "everything is the same except the IP address is 16 bytes instead of 4". Instead there are new ways to do everything.

Addressing works differently (no broadcast, multicast everywhere, link-local is mandatory). Configuration works differently (SLAAC, RA, DHCPv6 is not a drop-in replacement for regular DHCP). Neighbor discovery replaces ARP and depends on ICMPv6 working. Fragmentation behavior changed. NAT is “not a thing” by design, which breaks a bunch of assumptions people built entire networks around.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#153

Really need governments to start pushing harder on IPv6 adoption. We need sticks, not just carrots. My favorite is chaos engineering forced IPv4 downtime.

What's the public good that justifies the government dictating which networking stack people use?

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#154
post #136
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>CG-NAT does have the benefit of making v4 address reputation less reliable heh, less reliable is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. You mean "complete and total trash". We need to get to the point where Cloudflare/AWS/some other big sites just block CG-NAT nodes for a day going this IP address is a risk. Instead if you're a website, instead of doing an easy block by IP, you're left filtering out AI crawlers, spamme…

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try switching ISPs. [0] Even Comcast provided me IPv6 service fifteen, twenty years ago. [0] Yes, I am aware that that's simply not possible for most folks. I used to be most folks, so I definitely know.

You're underestimating just how rare IPv6 is in my country. It's mostly found only in datacenters.

> underestimating

How could I have even begun to estimate? At the time I wrote my comment, I had zero information on which to base an estimate.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#156

Just yesterday--and I don't know how I wound up there--I looked at RFC1166 (from 1990) which is "a status report on the network numbers and autonomous system numbers used in the Internet community." There's a long list of companies and individuals who were assigned "internet numbers". To my surprise, my real name is listed there! I have no clue why.

[deleted]

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#157
post #135

During the holidays I refactored my home network. It was a fun project and I'm still kind of tinkering with it. At one point I decided that now let's go all in on IPv6 and it works now. Only thing that I couldn't do was route traffic from internet to my end devices, because I understood my ISP and the provided modem. I'm yet to pressure them, maybe they can do it manually for me.. But I'm glad I did it and getting 10…

Fwiw (in case it hadn't occurred to you already), there's no technical requirement to run your NAT64 on your router/modem/CPE. You could run the NAT64 on a Raspberry Pi or some other little device for instance.

Re: IP Addresses Through 2025

#158

Just yesterday--and I don't know how I wound up there--I looked at RFC1166 (from 1990) which is "a status report on the network numbers and autonomous system numbers used in the Internet community." There's a long list of companies and individuals who were assigned "internet numbers". To my surprise, my real name is listed there! I have no clue why.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN