GitHub.com still doesn't support IPv6. I know that there is some work going on to support it, but this shows that it is far from trivial.
AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
211–220 of 480 posts
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#212Can we go back in time and hit the designers of IPv6 upside the head? The decision not to make IPv6 backwards compatible, the belief that a beautiful new standard could magically replace something already so widespread... "Naive" is an inadequate word. We are still futzing with the transition 3 decades later, with no end in sight. Grrr, grumble...
These arguments always boil down to these two: "Please just try to fit more than 4 billion numbers into 4 bytes" -- this is mathematically impossible. "Just extend the address size" -- this is an entirely new protocol by the definition of IPv4, which uses fixed-size addresses. The reason for the slow IPv6 adoption is that there was no financial or business pressure. While IPv4 is ubiquitous, nobody individually feels…
The problem isn't ipv6 (even with the tons of extra features that ipv6 forces upon you).
One major problem is dual stack. It doubles the workload for very limited benefit. You have all the downsides of making ipv4 work in the first place. You've then got all sorts of messes like NAT66 (ipv6 was supposed to get rid of NAT), a lack of clarity on which patch to use (NPTv6 and NAT66 are two different options for the same problem, a problem which was built into ipv6 in the first place), messy hacks like DNS64
Instead had the approach been ipv6 only from the start, with no dual-stack, having the OS transparently deal with sockets to ipv4 devices by converting to the ipv6 mapped address (:ffff:xxxxxxx), and thus eliminating the need for dual stack from the start, things would have moved far far faster. You'd be able to communicate with ipv6 by using stateful NAT at the edge of your ipv6 network (as you do now at the edge of your RFC1918 network), you could expose services on your ipv6 only devices with natting (as you do now).
You'd still have A and AAAA records, your client having an ipv6 stack could prefer AAAA instead of A, but if it needed to use an A record (or someone just tried to connect to 12.34.56.78) the stack would have gone "ok I'm ipv6 only, I'll connect to :ffff:12.34.56.78" and rely on the network to make it happen.
Throw in things like NPTv6 and 464XLAT from the start (rather than 16+ years in) -- the addons which were created to address the fundamental architectural flaws in ipv6 -- and you'd have had a far smoother transition.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
These arguments always boil down to these two: "Please just try to fit more than 4 billion numbers into 4 bytes" -- this is mathematically impossible. "Just extend the address size" -- this is an entirely new protocol by the definition of IPv4, which uses fixed-size addresses. The reason for the slow IPv6 adoption is that there was no financial or business pressure. While IPv4 is ubiquitous, nobody individually feels…
"Just extend the address size" was certainly one of the options. Sure, it's still a change, but the point is: After this change, both protocols could have worked side-by-side. Devices that only supported IPv4, no problem, they send 32-bits. Devices that supported IPv6-as-it-could-have been would simply have zero-padded those 32-bits to match the new protocol. Talking to old devices, the zero-padding gets dropped. Tha…
Then any network address beyond ipv4’s 32 bit range would have been completely inaccessible to any legacy devices. That would have essentially been the same situation that we have now - where ipv6 only services are inaccessible to anyone on an ipv4 network. So service operators need to keep their ipv4 addresses and networks don’t update.
How would that be an improvement over the existing situation?
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fitting more than 4B numbers into 4 bytes is mathematically impossible, but building a backwards compatible and easier to integrate standard may not be. Take USB for example. The capabilities of USB 3.1, 3.0, 2.0 is impossible to achieve for USB 1.0. So is high-speed charging. However, the end-user experience is generally pleasant, nitpicks around some of USB-IF's specific choices aside.
IPv6 is backwards compatible. In multiple ways: Option 1: "6to4" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4 Option 2: "nat64" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAT64 + DNS64 Option 2b: "nat46" (which makes a few ipv6 hosts available over ipv4 if yo ulike) Option 3: "Teredo" (also known as "6in4" "tunnel broker" "6over4" "tunneling" ...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling Option 4: 6rd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP…
The fact there are so many options shows the fundamental design problem.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is even better: game.latticeanimal.net. 3600 IN A 1.2.3.4
I don't know a single gamer who rented a domain for private use. In fact, I would argue than the hassle of setting one up is the reason why Hamachi got popular back then. You don't have to bother with knowing any technical stuff, just download a software, share a code and play.
You dont?
It was extremely common with Teamspeak.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are willing to wait, you pay nothing. However, let's keep in mind that this evaluation is based on the private transfer market place for IPv4s not based on actual RIR costs. You must be an RIR member to hold IPs and there are membership dues that you must pay each year to maintain your allocation. Once you are a member of an RIR you just have to make a request and at least with ARIN that request and fulfillmen…
ARIN’s free pool of IPv4 address space was depleted on 24 September 2015. As a result, we no longer can fulfill requests for IPv4 addresses unless you meet certain policy requirements that reserved blocks of IPv4 addresses for special cases. https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv4/ ie. you have virtually no other option than to buy on the private market
ARIN is the first to deplete.
I think other RIR still IPv4 left.
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#217Can we go back in time and hit the designers of IPv6 upside the head? The decision not to make IPv6 backwards compatible, the belief that a beautiful new standard could magically replace something already so widespread... "Naive" is an inadequate word. We are still futzing with the transition 3 decades later, with no end in sight. Grrr, grumble...
IPv5 tried to stick to 32 bits. That didn't work out: https://www.lifewire.com/what-happened-to-ipv5-3971327
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> iphones are v6 only Are you sure about this? Do you have a link with details? If I disconnect from WiFi and use the SIM card currently in my iPhone, and I go to one of the websites that tell me my public IPv4 and IPv6 address it shows that the mobile internet connection I have with this SIM card is IPv4 only. iPhone 14 Pro
just checked again on an iphone se, 1st-gen, ios 15.x on t-mobile reseller in germany: actually there is a v4 default route on the wwan-interface that appears to be a p2p link (192/32) probably to a cgnat. besides 127/8, there are a only v6 routes, a lot of them.
how do you check the routing table from the iphone? a jailbreak? some app?
Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#219Re: AWS IPv4 Estate Now Worth $4.5B
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, 192.168.1.110 is MY network printer, you must have gotten confused somewhere!
Whoa buddy how did you get into my home network???
The same way we all do: A shitty modem that gives an ipv6 address to all devices, but only applies firewall rules to ipv4 addresses