Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

news.ycombinator.com

191–200 of 649 posts

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#191
post #32

IPv6 has been one of the biggest failures in the last couple of decades. And I don't mean adoption, I mean the standard itself. If IPv6 were IPv4 with more octets, then we would all have been using it for like a decade. Yes, I understand it would still require some breaking changes, but it would have been a million times easier to upgrade, as it would be a kind of superset of IPv4 (1.2.3.4 can be referred as 0.0.0.0.…

Let's not forget about the idea that ISPs would distribute a /56 range to residential users. You could split it in /64 ranges according to your requirements and everything would work fine.

There is only one "minor" issue: all major ISPs in my country ( Brazil ) only provide a single /64. You can't get another /64 unless you upgrade to a very expensive business plan.

That makes IPv6 not only useless but also a huge security issue.

1) I can't use my Mikrotik as a firewall. Trying to split a /64 range breaks things and some devices ( specially IOT ones ) will simply not work.

2) Routers provided by the ISPs here are very limited, specially for things like firewall rules. Some of them will only provide a On/Off switch, with Off option between the default one.

Although IPV4 + NAT had some issues, it ( accidentally? ) created a safe/sane default config for non-technical users. In order to open a port and expose a device, you have to explicitly add a rule on the firewall.

IPv6 is the other way around. In practice, all devices and ports are exposed unless you explicitly block it.

In the last 3 years I've noticed criminals focusing more and more on IPv6 scans to compromise devices and create botnets since it's much easier to find exposed/unpatched devices as most users don't understand how to correctly configure a firewall.

Most of the time, the only viable solution is to disable IPv6.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine I own a company and I already have a bunch of IP4. I upgrade my network equipment to IP4+, and then keep all my routing and firewall configs. Everything just works the same as before. Now I want to access IP4+, so I add a route entry for all the IPs above 255.255.255.255. In fact, if that entry is just "send everything to my upstream" it might already work! Now I want to add some new resources but I'm out of…

> Imagine I own a company and I already have a bunch of IP4. I upgrade my network equipment to IP4+, and then keep all my routing and firewall configs. Everything just works the same as before. Now I want to access IP4+, so I add a route entry for all the IPs above 255.255.255.255. It does not. Because 255.255.255.255 only covers 32 bits and "IP4+" is >32 bits. You'd still have to touch every rule to to tweak the mas…

> You'd still have to touch every rule to to tweak the mask.

No you wouldn't. 0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0/40 and 1.0.0.0/8 are the same thing. If the rule says 1.0.0.0/8 then the router converts it to 0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0/40. If you happen to have 1/8 as your rule, then an easy fix is to say ip4+ translates shorthand rules at ipv4 if the mask is under /32.

> What makes you think that companies would have been willing to make the effort to deploy "IP4+" any more than IPv6?

Because when they went to upgrade their router, as they often do every decade, it would just support IP4+ with no config changes on their end. They would pull their config from their old router and it would just work.

Then they would discover they had IP4+ support and maybe start using it.

The reason it is easier is because it's a small incremental change.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#193
post #5
post #4

The biggest problem remains cloud and CDN companies with poor to nonexistent IPv6 support. Most ISPs, especially on mobile, have it now or are adding it very soon. I've wondered whether some might be dragging their feet because they see an advantage in IP address scarcity to sell cloud gateways, CDNs, and other middle box type services. But the most likely explanation remains that not enough customers are asking for…

> Most ISPs, especially on mobile, have it now or are adding it very soon. Except Charter/Spectrum in the US.

I have it on Spectrum in Ohio. It may vary by market.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#194
post #172
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay - how about a few other angles? https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ - per-country, and within a country, per-asn eyeball statistics, collected from online ads - not just mobile! https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_country - per-country, albeit with a mobile-heavier bias (as you hint) https://www.akamai.com/internet-station/cyber-attacks/state-... - collected from their content delivery network - tends to show…

Neat, very different results. But still looking at it from the wrong direction? That is, ipv6 for clients. But I'm more interested in servers, because that is what would affect me if I don't have IPv4. Such as the experiences described by OP in this thread.

ipv6-only web sites are borderline nonexistant, because no one who needs to maintain a profit dares to cut off a revenue stream from legacy ip only users (yet).

the most exhaustive list thus far is https://sites.ip-update.net/ afaik

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#195

In Norway, it's required[0] for all public sectors to have IPv6. We are not there yet, but I believe the push will only increase with time. Especially all new internal networks must be IPv6, and IPv4 is optional. [0]: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2013-04-05-959?q=ip... (Sorry that it's in Norwegian.)

There is a current effort to fully transition the US government internal networks to IPv6 only: https://www.gsa.gov/technology/technology-products-services/...

Considering how many old, IPv4 based management and security tools are probably in use, it will be an exciting time.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the firewall rules that always creep me out. The nice thing about NAT is open ports on your internal network are hidden to the outside world by default. You have to think about which ports you want the NAT gateway to forward. With IPv6 the entire network is reachable outside by default. Granted I assume you can probably create a default DENY rule for inbound traffic and selectively open ports up as exceptions. R…

My own ISP provided router is by default setup to deny all inbound traffic on IPv6. I'm surprised it's not the default everywhere.

My ISP doesn’t support IPv6 at all, unless I want to voluntarily go behind a CGNAT.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#197
post #106

IPv6 is a case study in the second sytem effect [1]. Realizing you need to make breaking changes and it being rare that you get to do so you decide to make all the changes. The truth is IPv4 only had 2 real problems: 1. Lack of address space due to 32 bit addresses; and 2. Lack of a solution for roaming since your IP address is a core part of connection identity (between the source and destination address and port).…

> Part of the motivation for this was to use (mostly) unique MAC addresses (48 bits) as your identifier and that fits in 64 bits. Of course this became a massive PII leak and a tracker's dream so it never happened but we're still stuck with /64 blocks that we absoultely do not need.

please read about rfc4941 privacy extensions & how prevalent their use is before continuing to regurgitate decade-old, outdated privacy alarmism about MaC aDdReSsEs.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#198
post #32

IPv6 has been one of the biggest failures in the last couple of decades. And I don't mean adoption, I mean the standard itself. If IPv6 were IPv4 with more octets, then we would all have been using it for like a decade. Yes, I understand it would still require some breaking changes, but it would have been a million times easier to upgrade, as it would be a kind of superset of IPv4 (1.2.3.4 can be referred as 0.0.0.0.…

It’s the firewall rules that always creep me out. The nice thing about NAT is open ports on your internal network are hidden to the outside world by default. You have to think about which ports you want the NAT gateway to forward. With IPv6 the entire network is reachable outside by default. Granted I assume you can probably create a default DENY rule for inbound traffic and selectively open ports up as exceptions. R…

Every consumer and professional router I've seen comes with a deny rule for incoming traffic by default, unless the device is configured as a "router router", like inside an ISP.

NAT has many problems because people rely on it for security. For example, many shitty IoT devices and even consoles (looking at you, Nintendo Switch) tell you to put their device in the DMZ to make them work.

The norm for IPv6 in practice is that you've got your firewall on and need to make exceptions for ports you want open, just like on IPv4, except that with IPv6 you don't need some kind of interactive state machine attackers can confuse and abuse running inside your router's kernel (ALG).

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#199
post #194
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neat, very different results. But still looking at it from the wrong direction? That is, ipv6 for clients. But I'm more interested in servers, because that is what would affect me if I don't have IPv4. Such as the experiences described by OP in this thread.

ipv6-only web sites are borderline nonexistant, because no one who needs to maintain a profit dares to cut off a revenue stream from legacy ip only users (yet). the most exhaustive list thus far is https://sites.ip-update.net/ afaik

I'm not asking for ipv6-only, but ipv4-only.

Those are the ones blocking adoption for me, as an end user.

Re: Tell HN: IPv6-only still pretty much unusable

#200

We are IPv6-only on our institute-internal CPU compute cluster based on slurm. Only the head node has an IPv4 address, so that it can be reached from IPv4 only clients (sadly, there are still quite a lot). All nodes inside the cluster talk over IPv6. And all other computers with IPv6 access use that to communicate to the head node. We are transitioning to IPv6-only for internal services and try to avoid using IPv4 ad…

With all these limitations, why did you prefer IPv6 over IPv4?
Post reply on HN