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

Google Hits 50% IPv6

blog.apnic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#331

Post by tolien »

throw0101a wrote: post #225
rvba wrote: post #17

Great example of how fixing things "the correct way" does not seem to work sometimes. They added those new addresses that can store more information.. but this requires a rewrite of old software to make it work. If they used the old >bolting on top< method by extending ip4 from 4 octets to 8 (or more) octets, then old software could be extended much easier too / probably addresses could be simply mechanically transla…

> If they used the old >bolting on top In every fucking IPv6 thread this "just add more addresses" idea comes up. There is no "just" in expanding the address space: """ Whether you expand the address size to 33, 64 or 128 bits, all IPv4 implementations will discard the packets. So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means two things i…

If anything demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect on this forum, it’s the “just add more bits” crowd.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#333

Post by kvdveer »

IgorPartola wrote: post #329
JdeBP wrote: post #130

Just to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network…

The way to pressure ISPs to support IPv6 is stupid but effective: 1. Sites that help shoppers choose can add a big visual red flag to any ISP that doesn’t support IPv6. Consumers don’t know what IPv6 is by and large but they do understand seeing a big red flag. 2. Same thing for websites. Add a banner that says “hey your ISP doesn’t support proper internet connectivity which this site utilizes. Contact them to let th…

What would be the incentive for site owners to reduce the appeal of their site? The user has connected to the site, so there's obviously no immediate problem.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#334

Post by tolien »

mahboi wrote: post #311
throw0101a wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they used the old >bolting on top In every fucking IPv6 thread this "just add more addresses" idea comes up. There is no "just" in expanding the address space: """ Whether you expand the address size to 33, 64 or 128 bits, all IPv4 implementations will discard the packets. So it's a matter of mathematical and physical fact that to expand the address size, you must change the protocol, and that means two things i…

Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly assigned 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default 7. give every device its own public IP by default. Ipv6 did those anyway. Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0…

> 5. make addresses randomly assigned

and

> 7. give every device its own public IP by default.

Both of these are optional. Don’t want them? Don’t use them - if you don’t configure them, it won’t happen.

> 6. make routers accept inbound connections by default

That’s not a new feature with v6.

> Like I own 8.8.8.8. You want to add more bits, fine, I'm 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0 now. If anyone switches to the new thing, they know where to find me.

Now you (and everything in between) have to be able to handle packets addressed to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.8.8.0.0.0.0, so you’ve done point 4 without knowing it.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#336

Post by kortilla »

IgorPartola wrote: post #329
JdeBP wrote: post #130

Just to add to the 'but the ISPs do not' anecdotes, it has been six months since someone last commented so it is probably time to mention this again on Hacker News: * https://havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk/ A major ISP in the U.K., that said in a public statement on World IPv6 Day in 2011 that > As well as our core and access networks being capable of supporting IPv6, we're rigorously testing our entire network…

The way to pressure ISPs to support IPv6 is stupid but effective: 1. Sites that help shoppers choose can add a big visual red flag to any ISP that doesn’t support IPv6. Consumers don’t know what IPv6 is by and large but they do understand seeing a big red flag. 2. Same thing for websites. Add a banner that says “hey your ISP doesn’t support proper internet connectivity which this site utilizes. Contact them to let th…

Regular person, “This site requires some weird technology, I’ll shop somewhere else.”

This is one of those “if everyone just” solutions that doesn’t work because shopping websites would never do that. Amazon has tons of evidence that even the slightest bits of friction result in noticeable drops in sales.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#337

Post by sherburt3 »

convolvatron wrote: post #245
sherburt3 wrote: post #210

Literally all we had to do was add a byte to IPv4 and we'd be done but noooo we need to overengineer the next protocol and make it as painful as possible to adopt.

this keeps coming up, if you add a byte to ipv4 you still have a transition problem. 5 byte machines can't talk to 4 byte machines. pretty much the only thing that solves is people not liking the :: syntax. the only other change is auto configuration, which...kind of doesn't matter? is that really causing problems?

I think the addresses are a big issue. The address space is just stupid big, I don't understand why we need to prepare for every grain of sand on Earth having a WiFi chip in it.

Most people can pick up calculating subnets in their head in ipv4 pretty quickly and ipv4 addresses are easy to memorize on accident. My brain turns to mush as soon as I start seeing hexadecimal characters in addresses.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#338

Post by hdgvhicv »

inigyou wrote: post #230
hdgvhicv wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those phones are reaching half the internet via 64 gateways, no difference to reaching via 44 gateways.

The network isn't just the open internet. There's also the part inside the network. You can view Comcast as a black box that magically gets packets from one side to the other, but Comcast engineers can't.

If you want to run a single massive scale network sure. One of the costs of scaling that the majority don’t see

No reason you can’t carry IPv4 over any protocol you want. Multi tennant vxlans can carry whatever you want over your base network. Maybe an IPv6 underlay makes sense there, doesn’t really matter

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#339

Post by kortilla »

dijit wrote: post #190
post-it wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the things to regulate why bother with this one? It's not like IPv6 is better for the environment or useful to the consumer.

depends on how you look at it. Right now it's very much a tragedy of the commons. IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- because it's a lot harder to make it work rather than throwing up a TURN box and relaying everything. "The latency? Who cares? IPv6 sometimes breaks right now" - because nobody is testing it, so why should people be the fi…

The p2p tech argument doesn’t work anymore. Most routers ship a stateful IPv6 firewall enabled by default now because IPv6 was resulting in people’s vulnerable shit getting popped.

So p2p stuff still doesn’t work without explicit configuration that rules out 99% of your users. It’s super annoying.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#340

Post by TacticalCoder »

sherburt3 wrote: post #210

Literally all we had to do was add a byte to IPv4 and we'd be done but noooo we need to overengineer the next protocol and make it as painful as possible to adopt.

> ... but noooo we need to overengineer ...

We need to pretend we overengineer. But some in the committee made it sure data exfil would be basically impossible to detect / block with IPv6, which all the others, always in love with the most rube-goldberg design possibles, loved the "overengineered" solution.

With rube-goldberg designs, you can then always say stuff like:

"The xz backdoor was TOTALLY unrelated to systemd"

Yet it only concerned distro that shipped with systemd.

Go figure.

It's always "because insert-crazy-non-sensical-hair-pulling-reason-here".

Ah yes, it's because of that. So it's so totally unrelated right?

Except it still only affect distro using systemd.

Or maybe, you know, backdoors and exfils were the plan from the very start.

"The protocol won't work correctly unless you let crazy ping packets doing you-know-what". And nobody is ever going to properly firewall all that.

Overengineering is one thing, yes.

But we know for a fact that there are xxxINTs infiltrating committees and pushing "solutions" that are only solutions to them.

Post reply on HN