371–380 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you mean the fact that amazon has around 4.5B reasons to not support ipv6? interesting idea
AWS supports IPv6. https://aws.amazon.com/vpc/ipv6/
2/3 of their internal services don’t. You can do ipv6 only vpc but not if you wanted to use rds or ecr or …
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost to own an IP is about $45. But that is almost entirely a one time cost, you can rent an IP for well under $10 a year
How do you do that? I'd like to buy one.
If you are from The Netherlands I can recommend Freedom Internet [1]. A /29 (6 usable IPv4) costs 17 EUR/month (VAT equivalent included). That is less than 3 EUR per IPv4 a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hurricane Electric Network Tools can do it. Its an app.
kind of brings up the question if all apps can do this
None of the entries in the cellular routing table is IPv6 with my current SIM card. So I am doubting more and more the claim that iPhone is somehow IPv6 only.
Seems more like some people have carriers that choose to provide them IPv6 only, and because of that they think that it has to do with the iPhone itself.
PDP_IPO (CELLULAR DATA)
default via 10.10.67.87 UGSC
10.10.67.87 via 10.10.67.87 UHr
10.10.67.87/32 via link#3 UCS
10.255.91.156 via 10.10.67.87 UGHWli
17.57.144.87 via 10.10.67.87 UGHWli
224.0.0/4 via link#3 UmCS
255.255.255.255/32 via link#3 UCS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The IPv6 transition will be like a bankruptcy: very slowly, slowly, then all of a sudden. I don't think that's true. Some services on the internet are already made available through IPv6. Doesn't that mean their migration to IPv6 is done? There are however some ISPs that seem to be dragging their feet. I recall I tried to deprecate IPv4 access to a personal project of mine and it was no longer reachable when I trie…
No, the migration is only done when you're exclusively running IPv6. Very very little of the internet is accessible only over IPv6.
I don't think that's an informed, thought-out take. The internet works just fine for all intents and purposes if you have some services reachable through IPv4. There is no obligation to shut down IPv4 in order to work with IPv6.
If you're able to go through your daily work seamlessly hitting services with IPv6, that's a successful migration. It matters nothing if an unrelated service hasn't went through their migration yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That document has been going around for ages and is based on the same fundamental misunderstanding that one somehow can extend IPv4 in a way somehow, but remain compatible with IPv4-only clients. Let me summarize my understanding of what he's saying, because I don't quite see why/how you disagree. I think you (or I) might be misunderstanding his claim. Imagine this topology: C (client, IPv4-only) R (intermediate ro…
The issue is not how can we enable IPv4 C talk to IPv4 S, since that already works. The problem is how would C (ipv4-only) send a packet to S (ipv6-only) in the first place? It doesn't know how to deal with non-ipv4 packets, since it's ipv4-only. Thus if the server does not have a IPv4-address how does a IPv4-client send packets to it? The inverse situation (IPv6-only client but IPv4-only server) is not really an iss…
If S is IPv6-only, then either the address is from the IPv4 range, or it's not. If it is, then R can translate between them. If not, then they can't connect. I don't see him suggesting otherwise anywhere.
Even ignoring translation possibility, his point here isn't to claim its magically possible for a server outside the IPv4 address range to talk to an IPv4 client. His point is that this can move everyone to IPv6 for communication, without ISPs also having to deal with leasing addresses outside the IPv4 range, which he believes would help adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a way to get a /24 block that I own and has been unused since the mid 90's routed without signing a new contract and paying the new ARIN fees?
You can not "own" a /24 block. And if your membership lapses, then your blocks are returned to the general pool. It's possible that your block is a part of a legacy allocation, they are governed differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the migration is only done when you're exclusively running IPv6. Very very little of the internet is accessible only over IPv6.
> No, the migration is only done when you're exclusively running IPv6. I don't think that's an informed, thought-out take. The internet works just fine for all intents and purposes if you have some services reachable through IPv4. There is no obligation to shut down IPv4 in order to work with IPv6. If you're able to go through your daily work seamlessly hitting services with IPv6, that's a successful migration. It ma…
Earlier 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…
There was a third option: make the existing IPv4 space a hierarchically routed island of the new IPv4.1 space, with backwards compatible packet format, then upgrade just the endpoints in the first phase. So every owner of a ipv4 would get, say, an entire 32 bit space that routes over existing IPv4 infrastructure . So, if the endpoints are upgraded, you have guaranteed end-to-end deliverability without silly hacks suc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the applications that could communicate peer-to-peer use relay servers that make delay and scalability worse. Some combinations of NAT may sometimes work without a relay server, but figuring this out is complex and increases connection setup time. Every early SIP/VoIP user had the 'the connection only works in one direction' experience, usually caused by NAT. A CGNAT is a stateful component which makes it exp…
Peer-to-peer still wouldn't work even in a fully IPv6 world without something like STUN or TURN, since endpoints would still be protected by stateful firewalls preventing external connections to them.
It can open the firewall simply by sending something. If it can communicate its public-facing ipv6 address/src port number to the remote side using a SIP proxy (ok, for this signalling, you need a relay), it can receive traffic. No TURN needed either.
What scenario do you have in mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have some misconfiguration on your local network I’m sure I do. But that’s sort of the point. I only use standard commercial hardware with the default config. If that doesn’t work out of the box, what chance does someone who doesn't have my decades of networking experience have in fixing it? Granted I’m probably more sensitive than most because I know what network issues look like. Most people probably just thi…
I think there's largely three groups that home users fall into here: 1. people who just use the router their ISP provides 2. people who go and buy off the shelf consumer routers/wifi - eg Netgear, Linksys, TP-Link 3. the kinds of people who run home labs and use small/medium business targeted routers/wifi like pfSense, VyOS, Unifi, Mikrotik, or even things like Juniper SRXes etc. The first group will get a 'blessed'…