GitHub is still not accessible on the IPv6-only internet: https://isgithubipv6.live/
Consider codeberg.org as alternative: Has full IPv6 support, is not owned by Microsoft, does not force 2FA on its users and is a non-commercial enterprise.
The IPv6 Transition
231–240 of 433 posts
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#232IPv6 is _still_ not at the feature parity with IPv4! I'm not kidding. For example, Android doesn't support stateful DHCPv6. And DHCPv6 doesn't have the _basic_ feature of DHCPv4: hostnames. You can't easily use it to do a quick survey of your network. Then you have that @#& (^( &!@^ that is ULA. With IPv4 we have a very useful pattern: you create an "internal" network that is stable and predictable. It's routed to th…
> dhcpv6
Just skip DHCPV6, just use SLAAC. Plus I've never seen DHCP hostnames work.
Now I just ping ff02::1 multicast to see what devices are on my network. Unfortunately much software makes it a pain to use link-local addresses but they're really convenient as they normally don't change across networks.
> Half of the hosts don't implement prefix withdrawal, and keep both their ULAs and the normal addresses. Congrats, now these hosts can't talk to each other due to the ULA addresses being less preferred.
I've had similar issues with crappy devices not relinquishing DHCPv4 IPs properly. Always fun trying to figure out why your laptop is dropped off your network after 20 minutes because it honors DHCP.
The lack of proper prefix widthdrawl sucks. Though it's something software should be able to handle by preferring ULA addresses when communicating locally.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vietnam (pop. 98M) has mandated moving to IPv6, with goals for migration between 2025 and 2030: * https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/14/vietnam_digital_infra...
Meanwhile in Australia I called my ISP to enable IPv6 and they asked me to justify why I needed it. Because "it's the Internet" and has been a standard since the year 2000 doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to bother...
"I'm a software developer and I need it to do my job."
Even if it's not strictly true, that seems like a solid justification. Though obviously that won't work for the general public.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much. Well, its only really a problem if you're poor. Rich people don't care - IPs are still cheap enough when you live in a wealthy country & have a decent job. The people affected by IP address exhaustion are largely the exact set of people who can't do anything about it.
What country is that where poor people can’t afford an IP address? Is it a real place?
From the article, IPv4 only has 3.03 billion unique, routable addresses. The world population is 8.2 billion. So there's only enough IPv4 addresses for 1 unique address per 3 people on the planet. But of course, in reality, huge swathes of the IP address range are held by big companies (like amazon), universities and the US military.
Its very common for whole streets or neighbourhoods to collectively share a single IPv4 address. Its required, as a result of simple math.
You'll even see this in some parts of the US and UK.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#235The premise is completely wrong here. IPv6 is not just an “incremental change” that would have represented an easy uptake. Instead, pretty much every practical detail of existing IPv4 infrastructure, both hardware and software, was broken. Massive swaths of extra management and security tools were rendered useless. It was a massive miscalculation. In the meantime, we figured out how to make things work without the ex…
NAT doesn't ever provide security, only pretending to.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#236My ISP has given me a quite stable /64 network that's lasted for months and months. I am curious though: my IPv6 network begins with 2600::, which I feel is not an accident or mere coincidence. For a long time, Facebook would never "trust" my device, and I suspected it was because of the IPv6 thing. Now, "2600" is actually a hex number and doesn't mean 2600 decimal, but 2600 is an interesting prefix for a stable addr…
According to the IANA assignment list, 2600::/12 is assognrd to ARIN.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assign...
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
What requirement could an ISP impose on you for you to be forced to migrate the intranet to IPv6 (because of PI-hole)? You could always place a small NAT-enabled router between your ISP's device and your home network. The only problem I could see would be the lack of a (semi-)static public IPv4 address, which one could solve by renting a VPS.
My ISP is the French "Free". They provide a router that is difficult to swap with my own (it is possible, but it is way easier to switch it to a bypass mode). With this router comes a TV box that requires IPv6 to work. When I replace DHCP/DNS with Pihole I need to account for that. While this is not a complex setup once you understand IPv6 you still need to learn it. I work in IT so I tried to get myself to IPv6 seve…
So you had to learn IPv6 the same way you learned IPv4. The question is: was it harder ?
It seems you wanted to know IPv6 without learning it because you thought it would be the same as IPv4.
And yes the Free boxes are hard to work with if you don't want to mess with vlan and still have TV services.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites. They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.
Why do dynamic address allocations matter? Most IPv4 consumer WAN addresses are also dynamic. I’m asking, because I’m an advocate of having your gateway advertise a separate, stable ULA /64 in conjunction with the globally-routable dynamic /64. This gives you a stable set of addressable LAN IPs, and you can usually ignore the dynamic globally routable IPs. Granted this won’t work for everyone, but if dynamic global a…
It matters, because when the prefix changes, it changes IP addresses of every single device in your network.
As you wrote, internally, you can use ULA. But you cannot open access from outside, because your firewall rules will become invalid with prefix change. With classic IPv4 NAT, your internal addresses don't change, so your port forwarding works, even if the WAN address changes.
Together, with a single /64 -- which means no subnets for you -- you are getting worse deal than with IPv4. You shouldn't have to contact your ISP for a plan (for a premium, obviously), that allows you to segment your network or open access to specific devices. What's the use of direct connections -- the IPv6 promise -- when you cannot use them anyway?
In short, with limitations like these, you are getting a bad deal.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT is mostly okay, but carrier grade NAT where you can't forward a port causes real problems. IPv4 exhaustion is a real problem, it's just not enough to motivate people much.
If it was a real problem, market pricing would reflect the increasing severity of that problem. The truth is that people who care about port forwarding are such a small minority -- especially now that P2P file sharing has lost its hype -- that they don't make a visible dent in the rate of IPv4 exhaustion.
Why was this downvoted? It’s exactly right.
The reason that IPv6 is so lightly used is that it’s cheaper to use IPv4 + workarounds.
I’m not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, or making any value judgment about IPv4 vs IPv6.
People and businesses don’t spend money on technology upgrades where the benefit is not measurably better than what they already have.
This is just common sense; no one wants to throw away money.
If you want people to use IPv6, then IPv4 has to fail first. As long as people keep making it work then the benefits of changing will never outweigh the costs.
BTW this is exactly the same situation as clean energy vs fossil fuel, etc. In that situation governments are actively putting their thumb on the economic scales in all sorts of ways. Again, I’m not offering a value judgment, just an observation.
Re: The IPv6 Transition
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink uses CGNAT. It's awful, I'm regularly getting CAPTCHAs on random websites. They now support IPv6 but only with dynamic address allocations so you don't get a lot of advantages from it.
Why do dynamic address allocations matter? Most IPv4 consumer WAN addresses are also dynamic. I’m asking, because I’m an advocate of having your gateway advertise a separate, stable ULA /64 in conjunction with the globally-routable dynamic /64. This gives you a stable set of addressable LAN IPs, and you can usually ignore the dynamic globally routable IPs. Granted this won’t work for everyone, but if dynamic global a…
Having an extra 1:1 ipv6 NAT for ULA is added complexity that wouldn't be neccessary if you just give out static addresses.
Its not like IPv6 /56 subnets are expansive. Just give each customer a full /56 net and you are done.