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

IPv6 is the only way forward

ankshilp.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 350 posts

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#241

Post by vel0city »

LoganDark wrote: post #218
throw0101d wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes...? I know that, but does that cause any issues in practice other than death of P2P? Well: > If you’re a gamer using PS5, Xbox, or PC in 2025, running into Double NAT or CGNAT port forwarding issues can make online play nearly impossible. Many 5G home internet and satellite services (like T-Mobile Home Internet and Starlink) put users behind carrier-grade NAT, which blocks direct connections and port forwarding…

> What kind of applications and services are not being invented because we're stuck with the current non-P2P / centralized setup of IPv4+NAT? I don't know? I've never had CG-NAT and yet I've never seen a piece of software that takes advantage of that except maybe for games that use UPnP to open ports.

> I've never seen a piece of software that takes advantage of that except maybe for games

Maybe we haven't seen many products available on the market to take advantage of it because the current standard of NATs make such things practically unworkable?

Its pretty much impossible to ship smart home stuff that is hosted locally (i.e. not without it connecting to some cloud service) because people want to access these smart devices from outside their home. They're not likely to configure a VPN to connect home, they're not going to configure NATs in any workable fashion (or may be unable to, such as CGNAT), the applications probably don't want to have to handle having NAT hairpinning issues, etc.

So instead we continue down everything that's popular being something that requires a cloud proxy/relay (because that's the only way things actually work for most people), when in reality if things could just be public we could do a whole bunch more and empower people to easily host things themselves.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#242

Post by everdrive »

orangeboats wrote: post #212
wpm wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Pretending that 0-9A-Z is somehow comparable to 行 or ∮ is quite daring, I will give you that. And once again: any anti-IPv6 people could have already learned proper IPv6, if they directed 10% of their efforts (spent on bashing the IPv6 address format) to learn IPv6 instead. - In the grand scheme of things, the IP address itself is of very little importance. It was given undue attention because of how IPv4 was inheren…

>And once again: any anti-IPv6 people could have already learned proper IPv6, if they directed 10% of their efforts (spent on bashing the IPv6 address format) to learn IPv6 instead.

I spent some good time trying to learn IPv6. I was pretty open to it, but it was just awful. There were parts of it that were bad due to other reasons -- my router, my ISP. But it was unworkable, produced a number of problems and provided me no benefit.

I learn new things all the time. I learn things I like, learn about things I dislike. I find it really rude that people suggest "I just don't want to learn things."

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#243

Post by kstrauser »

labcomputer wrote: post #151
p1mrx wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-7 exists, but was rarely used. UTF-8 is convenient because ASCII has a spare bit, but UTF-8 is fundamentally possible because ASCII is variable-length. IPv4 is not variable-length.

> IPv4 is not variable-length. I get the impression that this fact is fundamentally lost on a lot of the people who want a "compatible" IPv6. Like, their mental model does not distinguish between how we as humans write down an IPv4 address in text and how that address is represented in the packet. So they think "let's just add a couple more dots and numerals and keep everything else the same"

I think you’re right. Honestly, my impression is that a lot of people imagine it like a string field, and others more like a rich text field, analogous to “can’t we just use a smaller font?”

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#244

Post by commandersaki »

Yizahi wrote: post #57

I honestly don't understand why IPv6 is not actively deployed in 2026. Every piece of networking hardware over past decade supports IPv6 and often dual stack too. And to switch between both often takes a few clicks if DHCPv6 server is up and reachable. Absolutely transparent, free, zero performance hit. But no, so many persist at doing v4. PS: I'm talking about MSO hardware. But client hardware should be at the same…

Support nightmare for ISPs.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#245

Post by fulafel »

kstrauser wrote: post #231
fulafel wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to have an airgapped network, sure. For most people it doesn't make sense. You'll just get the worst of of both worlds.

It’s pretty sweet. By using ULA addresses for everything, all internal networking keeps working as-is if my ISP allocation changes. Every host can talk to its neighbors using internal addresses, and still connect to remote hosts without NAT breakage.

You also get this if you use mDNS, but without the ULA hassle and you get to use DNS names instead of hardcoding IP addresses.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#246

Post by orangeboats »

tonymet wrote: post #230
orangeboats wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about you send $2 to the people in India and China who can't get a public IPv4 address then?

They don’t need one. They have CGNAT

Got it. So they are subhumans who shouldn't get a public IP anyway.

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#247

Post by delotrag »

magicalhippo wrote: post #186
MaKey wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, if I had bothered configuring IPv6 firewall rules, those would have had to be reconfigured manually with the new prefix. I understand this is mostly fixed in pfSense recently, but this was the case for many, many years. Why would you have to reconfigure your firewall rules when you're getting a new IPv6 prefix?

> Why would you have to reconfigure your firewall rules when you're getting a new IPv6 prefix? Because the IP address of the target changes when you get a new prefix. There's some discussion in this[1] old pfSense ticket. With IPv4 you typically do address translation (NAT) and so the internal target address is not tied to the global address. [1]: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/6626

My consumer router uses iptables under the hood, so it accepts a mask in the firewall rule (so e.g. I can do ::0123:4567:89ab:cdef/::ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff as a target, and when my /56 changes, the rules Just Work™)

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#248

Post by orangeboats »

everdrive wrote: post #242
orangeboats wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretending that 0-9A-Z is somehow comparable to 行 or ∮ is quite daring, I will give you that. And once again: any anti-IPv6 people could have already learned proper IPv6, if they directed 10% of their efforts (spent on bashing the IPv6 address format) to learn IPv6 instead. - In the grand scheme of things, the IP address itself is of very little importance. It was given undue attention because of how IPv4 was inheren…

>And once again: any anti-IPv6 people could have already learned proper IPv6, if they directed 10% of their efforts (spent on bashing the IPv6 address format) to learn IPv6 instead. I spent some good time trying to learn IPv6. I was pretty open to it, but it was just awful. There were parts of it that were bad due to other reasons -- my router, my ISP. But it was unworkable, produced a number of problems and provided…

If bad routers etc. makes you think IPv6 is bad... then man, I think for me IPv4 is a mountain of shite.

But my comment was not directed at you, more so towards those people who looked at IPv6 very superficially (i.e. the ipV6 AddRESs iS UgLY!!1! people), so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#249

Post by WorldMaker »

gosub100 wrote: post #234

Can someone pity me enough to explain how to do DNS on ipv6 while using slaac? All I want to do is give every machine on my network a friendly hostname like storage.lan, timsPhone.lan, etc without having to run BIND (if possible), or dhcpd. I have heard of zeroconf for ipv4, but the catch is I want this to work across several different platforms like Windows , freebsd, Linux, etc. I also don't want to use static addr…

You are looking for mDNS which is the modern name for zeroconf/Bonjour/etc. The URL suffix is .local (storage.local, myphone.local, myprinter.local). Most modern OSes support it out of the box, but also don't advertise their names on mDNS until you ask them nicely (travel through a maze of Settings and Firewall options).

mDNS supports IPv6 just fine/works on IPv6 only LANs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_DNS

Re: IPv6 is the only way forward

#250

Post by [deleted] »

general1465 wrote: post #108
throw0101c wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whole model same as IPv4 (DHCP, NAT, ICMP, DNS, ...) just in v6. All of those things exist in IPv6. And it is physically impossible for DNS to be the same, as you have to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. A lot of legacy code did not h…

> All of those things exist in IPv6. And it has not existed at the start of the IPv6 and is one of the many reasons why after all those years we are having a poor penetration of IPv6.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN