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

Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 396 posts

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#371

Post by orangeboats »

commandersaki wrote: post #366
apearson wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://google.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://www.netflix.com/ https://www.espn.com/ Not sure what you mean you can't use the Internet without IPv4. Yes some sites won't work but some sites don't work with https but that doesn't mean you can't use https on the internet

All those sites you mention work with IPv4 just fine. When you shut off IPv4 in favour of IPv6 you shut off access to probably 70% of the Internet. Let's see what happens when you don't enable IPv6? Oh nothing... that's right, the Internet will remain working just fine. There's very little incentive to support IPv6 when all that is required to connect to the Internet is IPv4. Which comes to the fundamental issue with…

>it will always remain a second class citizen until we no longer need to rely on IPv4

At $DAYJOB we are already running some services on IPv6 only to save costs, and if our IPv6 connectivity drops people notice it immediately. Is IPv6 still considered a second class citizen when this is the case?

Here's a reminder that "the Internet" is not just Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#372

Post by iknowstuff »

rini17 wrote: post #361
iknowstuff wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, it actually is zero configuration lol. My devices assign themselves an IPv6 via SLAAC, and they are reachable from other devices via devicename.local. Macs and iPhones have relied on mDNS for years. Windows supports it. Android supports it since 2022. Linux has avahi. If people could look a little further than the tip of their nose, they’d realize how much easier it’ll be to explain to people to just type in al…

..until another Alice joins the network with her iphone. There are plenty of valid reasons to manage names centrally and configure addresses explicitly, but no I'm supposedly a dinosaur that is supposed to get extinct finally :(

It will rename itself to be alices-iphone-2.local

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#373

Post by Dagger2 »

ta1243 wrote: post #200
tuetuopay wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a really practical reason behind this, and it is called "routers". Due to longest prefix match, you'll end up wasting resources on the networking hardware. And you waste both precious and expensive TCAM and LPM latency for matching the prefixes. So routers do optimize for anything shorter than /64, and have special lookup memory for /64 and /128. But nothing in-between.

That's fair enough, in which case ipv6 is really only a /76 (having more than 1000 hosts on a subnet isn't a great thing, even with no broadcast and arp and other traffic, and /76 allows 4000 on a /64) Those fanboys going "we'll never run out of 2^128 IPs" are being disingenuous when about 2^59 of them have been burnt straight away (I'd guess most subnets have less than 30 devices) 2^64 subnets is a reasonable number…

It's not being burnt, there are two useful things we're doing with the 64-bit network size:

* Sparse networks. 64 bits is too big to feasibly do a brute force scan on, which reduces how often servers get exploited by random network attacks. * SEND secures NDP by using those 64 bits for a public key

Reducing network sizes to 12 bits would destroy both advantages.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#374

Post by p1mrx »

dtaht wrote: post #283

I often wish that there had been a way to politically make 240/4 and 0/8 commonly available. But in part I drove those projects to annoy the IPv6 crowd into action.

I'm still a bit miffed about the Linux kernel change that broke my unit test expecting connect(0.0.0.1) to fail fast.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#375

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #323

Well, this exactly explains why HN's site has become so unreliable for me. As soon as this post appeared, I began receiving timeouts. 90% of the time, the front page won't load, the host won't respond. I have no troubles with any other IPv4 or IPv6 sites. My home network has been running IPv6 for about 8 years, since my ISP enabled it and I worked out some good router settings. I routinely verify that all 3 of my dev…

Okay, I'm looking into this, and my router was stuck in a "6to4 tunnel" configuration with local address assignment 2002:*

This is undesirable for several reasons, but that's what it picked up with "Auto Detect" and "Auto Config". I toggled settings a few times and regained a 2600:* "real IPv6" delegation.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#376

Post by commandersaki »

orangeboats wrote: post #369
commandersaki wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the one job it had, to prevent address depletion on the Internet. Just to be clear, we're talking about the Internet here, and not some IPv6 island.

I don't get you. We are running dual stack for the time being, and indeed we cannot solve address depletion this way, but that doesn't mean we are doing it forever. At some point -- maybe when 60%, 70%, or 80%, or 90% of the Internet is running on IPv6 -- Internet services at a large scale will begin to deem IPv4 as a liability, and drop IPv4 support along with the addresses they are holding. I am not talking about a…

IPng was meant to avert the IPv4 address exhaustion crisis. IPv6 was chosen as the way forward. A transition group (ngtrans) was formed and instead of taking the time to consider how to integrate IPv6 into the existing landscape it decided to create a separate island. We now have a hodgepodge of transition plans and umpteen different transition mechanisms of which none make IPv6 first class.

What do I mean by making IPv6 first class? Basically a transition plan/mechanism where IPv6 is interoperable with IPv4. This was one of the primary considerations at the time when IPng were still deciding, where other contenders at the time had a better transition plan story. Instead the IPng group chose the technology that didn't have any transition plan because they liked the shiny new features that were irrelevant to averting the address exhaustion situation. Their failure to address the transition back then is why we're in this IPv6 adoption bottleneck.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#377

Post by Dagger2 »

neojima wrote: post #362
jasode wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ARIN recently handed out a /16 allocation to Capital One. That is one 65,025th of all of IPv6. A reasonable sized /32 allocation [...] The more one digs, the more egregious it seems. If the NETIFY webpage is accurate, it shows that Capital One already had "/32" and "/36" blocks, and yet they also got "/16" : https://www.netify.ai/resources/networks/capital-one And if I'm reading the ARIN fees correctly, it only cost…

> And if I'm reading the ARIN fees correctly, it only costs $4000 annually for a "/16" allocation: For better or worse, you're not; that's for IPv4 /16. For IPv6 /16, it'd be the X-Large service category, so $16,000/year.

And for $256,000/year you can... exhaust the entirety of 2000::/3?

Yeah, that's not okay. Either the price needs to go up a lot or they need to include factors other than money in the allocation criteria.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#378

Post by greyface- »

Dagger2 wrote: post #377
neojima wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if I'm reading the ARIN fees correctly, it only costs $4000 annually for a "/16" allocation: For better or worse, you're not; that's for IPv4 /16. For IPv6 /16, it'd be the X-Large service category, so $16,000/year.

And for $256,000/year you can... exhaust the entirety of 2000::/3? Yeah, that's not okay. Either the price needs to go up a lot or they need to include factors other than money in the allocation criteria.

> they need to include factors other than money in the allocation criteria

They already do, and simply being able to pay the fee does nothing to qualify you for an allocation: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-ipv6

At least, in theory. I'm not going to attempt to defend the Capital One allocation.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#379

Post by Dagger2 »

commandersaki wrote: post #376
orangeboats wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get you. We are running dual stack for the time being, and indeed we cannot solve address depletion this way, but that doesn't mean we are doing it forever. At some point -- maybe when 60%, 70%, or 80%, or 90% of the Internet is running on IPv6 -- Internet services at a large scale will begin to deem IPv4 as a liability, and drop IPv4 support along with the addresses they are holding. I am not talking about a…

IPng was meant to avert the IPv4 address exhaustion crisis. IPv6 was chosen as the way forward. A transition group (ngtrans) was formed and instead of taking the time to consider how to integrate IPv6 into the existing landscape it decided to create a separate island. We now have a hodgepodge of transition plans and umpteen different transition mechanisms of which none make IPv6 first class. What do I mean by making…

Can you tell us what the better transition story was? As far as I can tell, v6 is already approximately as interoperable with v4 as it's possible to be.

I don't get your claim that it's a separate island at all. It's not. This machine is v6-only and isn't on an island, it has full access to the entire Internet.

Re: Tell HN: Hacker News now supports IPv6

#380

Post by commandersaki »

Dagger2 wrote: post #379
commandersaki wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPng was meant to avert the IPv4 address exhaustion crisis. IPv6 was chosen as the way forward. A transition group (ngtrans) was formed and instead of taking the time to consider how to integrate IPv6 into the existing landscape it decided to create a separate island. We now have a hodgepodge of transition plans and umpteen different transition mechanisms of which none make IPv6 first class. What do I mean by making…

Can you tell us what the better transition story was? As far as I can tell, v6 is already approximately as interoperable with v4 as it's possible to be. I don't get your claim that it's a separate island at all. It's not. This machine is v6-only and isn't on an island, it has full access to the entire Internet.

TUBA had a sane transition story [1] although I do not know of the mailing lists these were discussed (probably done in in-person IETF meetings).

For IPv6 transition mechanism you can look into the ngtrans mailing list regarding AutoIPv6 which is basically an extension of 6to4 but instead of connecting IPv6 networks over IPv4 it would extend to IPv4 hosts. There's also an archive link in my post history which you can lookup (on phone).

As for current v6 being interoperable with v4, that is patently false.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tuba-transi...

Post reply on HN