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

391–400 of 496 posts

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#391

Post by crote »

IsTom wrote: post #294
jjmarr wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did port forwarding in 2010 for a Minecraft server. Basically every router supports it. It wasn't meaningfully more difficult than setting up the server.

You can't do that with CGNAT.

You can, it just requires the ISP to play nice.

CGNAT doesn't have to draw a random ip:port combo out of a hat for every new connection. Nothing is stopping an ISP from implementing it by taking one ip and assigning ports 1-10.000 to customer A, 10.001 - 20.000 to customer B, and so on. Similarly, nothing is stopping an ISP from adding long-lived mappings to an otherwise-random pool which outlive the initial connection.

Some ISPs offer CGNAT traversal by letting you request a fixed ip:port combo via their self-service website. It's pretty much the same as regular NAT traversal, except that you can't freely pick the outside port. And because the number of people who actually care about it is so small: some ISPs even let you request to be exempted from CGNAT altogether! They'll already have a pool of legacy non-CGNAT customers and a pool of new CGNATted ones, so assigning a handful of nerds to the legacy pool to prevent them from complaining isn't a big deal.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#392

Post by crote »

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%!

That's because Odido violates the GDPR by retaining data of ex-customers. The hack also included data from people who stopped using their services several years ago.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#393

Post by throw0101a »

crote wrote: post #388
throw0101a wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. How about Xbox/PS multiplayer/P2P gaming? Hosting a Minecraft server? When Skype first came out it was P2P, but had to come up with the "supernode" concept (basically STUN/TURN/ICE) because of NAT: now all of our communication methods basically have to phone into the mothership. Do we want the Internet to be more centrali…

Would you give your personal phone number to random strangers on the internet, or even publish it on a website? Probably not, due to the possibility of harassment, right? IP addresses aren't any different, which immediately kills a huge portion of the game server self-hosting. A hosted and managed Minecraft server is available for less than the cost of a cup of coffee per month. At that price point it makes very litt…

> Would you give your personal phone number to random strangers on the internet, or even publish it on a website? Probably not, due to the possibility of harassment, right? IP addresses aren't any different, which immediately kills a huge portion of the game server self-hosting.

You talk of a singular number in this analogy, but that is completely non-sensical in the IPv6 context: even brain dead ISPs assign /64s to residential connections, so you could give random strangers a random IPv6 address that's valid for a few hours and then you remove it from service.

Want to provide a service? Generate a new address, assign it to the server, publish it to whomever you wish. When you're done remove the ip addr alias. Give each rando their own IPv6 address for the service that's only live for a finite amount of time.

In fact you could generate a new IPv6 address each second in your assigned /64 and you wouldn't run out for 584,942,417,355 years.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#394

Post by throw0101a »

icedchai wrote: post #256
throw0101a wrote: post #233

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. If I'm with a small-time ISP that has to use CG-NAT because they don't have the cash to buy/lease enough IPv4 addresses to give one to each CPE WAN interface, then using things like Xbox/PS multiplayer/P2P gaming is no longer possible. Want to host a Minecraft server? Too bad. Are thos…

You are right, but ISPs will tell you that you're not allowed to host servers anyway. Most have it in the AUP.

1. Is trying to use Xbox/PS2 multi-player functionality "hosting"?

2. Perhaps our expectations of what you should be allowed to do is too low?

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#395

Post by throw0101a »

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…

> 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.

Yeah… from the above link:

"""

Incidentally, "IPv8" proponents often ask why IPv6 didn't simply stick some extra bits on the front of IPv4 addresses, instead of inventing a whole new format. Actually, we tried that: the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" format was defined in [RFC3513] but deprecated by [RFC4291] because it turned out to be of no practical use for coexistence or transition. The related "IPv4-Mapped IPv6 address" format is still valid and has a role in the POSIX socket API. Mappings of this kind also figured in the moderately successful coexistence technologies known as 6to4 [RFC3056, RFC3068] and Teredo [RFC4380], which have now been overtaken by events.

"""

* https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/01.%20Introdu...

The people who created IPv6 weren't stupid: if you think you've thought up of a new idea, you probably haven't. Your "new idea" is either in the exact same situation as IPv6 or it was actually attempted and ended up being discarded.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#396

Post by throw0101a »

commandersaki wrote: post #229
throw0101a wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was also predicted that the address exhaustion problem would be averted, in fact that was the purpose of v6. It failed to deliver. It was averted: how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet? Do you think that would have been practicable without IPv6? Comcast—not even mobile—had to move to IPv6 on their landline ISP business because they ran out of IPv4 addresses for TR-069: the…

NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit. If v6 was useful and actually averted v4 exhaustion we'd all be accessing v6 sites/addresses at this point. Put another way, we can drop v6 completely and the Internet will still work. Obviously wouldn't work the other way around. As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest…

> NAT / CGNAT has been doing the heavy lifting extending the life of the Internet; ipv6 has done jack shit.

Given they made the transition to IPv6 on handsets, T-Mobile US, which has 140 million subscribers, would disagree:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6oBCYHzrTA

> As for telco addressing handsets, they could use any addressing scheme to be honest. When people talk about averting address exhaustion, they're not talking about internal addressing of networks, different problem altogether.

I'm sure if T-Mobile US thought they could, they would have:

> T-Mobile in the United States was running out of IPv4 addresses and needed an IPv6 transition strategy. Their solution was 464XLAT and IPv6-only.

* https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-...

Similarly Comcast rolled out IPv6 because they ran out of addresses for managing their CPE modems using TR-069: they were using 10/8 multiple times over, and it was too much of a hassle so they went to IPv6 (both internally and to their customers).

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#397

Post by ivlad »

gruez wrote: post #203
dijit wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>IPv6 not being supported in many places means the internet is more centralised, less likely to use proper p2p tech- Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content. At best you'd see something like netflix trying to offload their video hosting costs onto their customers.

> Realistically nobody outside some devoted HN readers are going to self host their own content.

P2P is not “self hosting”.

It’s video/audio conferencing working with less latency. It’s the ability to send a file directly and not via some file sharing site. It’s multiplayer gaming simplified. It’s faster software updates via BitTorrent.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#398

Post by kalleboo »

kortilla wrote: post #339
dijit wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hole punching works fine for IPv6 p2p.

It even mostly works fine on IPv4 NAT, but there are a bunch of edge cases (often involving CGNAT) where it breaks down so you can't rely on it, which are solved by IPv6.

https://tailscale.com/blog/how-nat-traversal-works

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#399

Post by kalleboo »

crote wrote: post #391
IsTom wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't do that with CGNAT.

You can, it just requires the ISP to play nice. CGNAT doesn't have to draw a random ip:port combo out of a hat for every new connection. Nothing is stopping an ISP from implementing it by taking one ip and assigning ports 1-10.000 to customer A, 10.001 - 20.000 to customer B, and so on. Similarly, nothing is stopping an ISP from adding long-lived mappings to an otherwise-random pool which outlive the initial connecti…

Can we at least stop claiming that IPv6 is "more complicated" than IPv4 when we're making it a requirement for IPv4 ISPs is to create CGNAT management portals.

Re: Google Hits 50% IPv6

#400

Post by laughing_man »

wolvoleo wrote: post #374
wolvoleo wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of those people might be ex-customers. People who moved, died, or switched to another company. I worked for a mobile company in the US, and once you were in our customer database, you stayed there. We never got hacked, at least, not so far, but if you got access to customer data the total number would be substantially higher than the current customer count.
Post reply on HN