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

371–380 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#371

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

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…

The problem with IPv6 is really not the changes it made. Support was flaky for a while but that is pretty much over.

The problem is that you have to deploy it. You have to handle the bigger IP space safely, you have to assign the IPs, add DNS records, routing, etc. All this is work and the pressure is low. NAT has mostly taken that away.

Nothing would have saved us from that. There is no way to expand the number of addresses from IPv4 to more than 32 bits apart from a new protocol. There would always be software and infra changes. The server still needs to be changed to a new IPv4+ address, the client needs a new address, there needs to be internet routing for that address.

There were of course changes that were more than just a bigger address space. But I think that if you have to make software changes anyways you could also add some improvements. SLAAC is pretty nice (you can use DHCPv6 if you don't like it). Removing Broadcast is a good idea. Fixed header sizes are an improvement. There is a lot in IPv6 that are really smart ideas. None if these changes are the reason why it hasn't been fully adopted yet.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#372

Post by boredatoms »

jlokier wrote: post #246
inigyou wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing about SLAAC is that it forces your ISP to give you at least 64 bits. Otherwise you know Comcast would only give out a /128 and charge you for more, so you'd use NAT at home just like IPv4.

Unfortunately SLAAC doesn't force upstream to provide a /64 universally. Some ISPs are reportedly giving out a /128, and SLAAC works adequately with a router performing IPv6 NAT, so those ISPs don't see a problem. Mobile phone as WiFi access point is another common way people access the net nowadays. I've occasionally seen permanent installations, with a phone taped to a window. I've never seen a mobile phone AP offe…

Thats why android supports dhcpv6-pd for a /64, but not assigning a /128 from dhcpv6

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#373

Post by [deleted] »

lxgr wrote: post #89
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is inherently a problem. It's good for home routers to have sensible defaults. Blocking incoming IPv6 connections is such a thing. Opening a port in the firewall shows the same kind of intent as forwarding a port with NAT. The burden is on the router manufacturers to expose these options in a sensible way. My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port fo…

> I don't think this is inherently a problem. [...] My router for example has a similar UI to forwarding a port with IPv4 and opening the port for IPv6. Glad to hear that you don't have a problem with your router, but how does that relate to GPs problems with theirs?

[deleted]

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#374

Post by wolvoleo »

wolvoleo wrote: post #259
djantje wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NL we have this one: https://heeftodidoipv6.nl Their core network has IPv6, but not their customers, 17% market share in telecom in the Netherlands. Are there more?

They also got hacked recently and all their customer details were published. PS: From the millions of customers' details leaked it sounds like their market share is a hell of a lot higher than 17%!

Yeah I looked it up, they're talking about 6.2 million customers' details.

That's 30% of the NL population.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#375

Post by inigyou »

brador wrote: post #265
inigyou wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good is a standard if it doesn't make devices interoperable?

Catcher pitcher model. Pitchers pitch, catchers decide what to catch. You want access to the 512 space, pick up the 512+ capable device. Free market decides where it lands. If there’s nothing of value at 512, it’ll naturally flop.

So why have a standard at all then? I want access to the Google Verizon space, I buy a Google Verizon device. The most flexible standard: one that imposes no requirements at all and allows vendors to do anything.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#376

Post by inigyou »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #338
inigyou wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mostly they do carry IPv4 over IPv6 if they have vaguely newish equipment, otherwise they carry IPv6 over IPv4.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#377

Post by inigyou »

sherburt3 wrote: post #268
inigyou wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How sure are you that 40 bits is a good number of bits? What's your justification? It takes over 30 years to deploy new bits, so you have to be really sure before you start that effort.

40 bits would've bought us a lot of time and would've kicked the can down the road several decades. People from the future would be much better equipped to design a new protocol because they understand their needs better.

How many decades? If several means six, we're already halfway there and at 50% deployment. What's the point of designing something you know will be obsolete the moment it hits 100% deployment?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#378

Post by inigyou »

ralfd wrote: post #248
inigyou wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How sure are you that 40 bits is a good number of bits? What's your justification? It takes over 30 years to deploy new bits, so you have to be really sure before you start that effort.

> It takes over 30 years Only because it is overengineered. Parents pragmatic protocol would have been adopted faster

IPv6 is just IPv4 with more address bits.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#379

Post by inigyou »

gruez wrote: post #328
miyuru wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

internet is used by billions of people, not just you.

You sure you don't have this reversed? The average person uses the internet to watch tiktok videos and join zoom meetings, all of which is centralized. The people self hosting their NAS or minecraft server is a tiny minority.

maybe because centralised is the only way you can do it
Post reply on HN