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

Why IPv6 is so complicated

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 519 posts

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#401

Post by kazen44 »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #313
api wrote: post #268

It’s not. It’s IPv4 with more bits and some changes to Ethernet level lookup. The SLAAC vs DHCPv6 mess is not really a problem with the core V6 spec.

SLAAC and DHCPv6 actually make a ton of sense, along with the other features of IPv6. I think you need a lot of experience in both networking and applications, at many scales, to understand the design decisions and appreciate how useful they are in which contexts. That said, you could publish a clear playbook for an ISP of residential Internet for ipv6 adoption, it wouldn't change much, because they are not deciding…

SLAAC is probably one of the better improvements of IPV6. DHCP breaks down at scale. Managing many DHCP prefixes becomes a massibe pain, SLAAC is far more scalable, far more easy to make redundant if you have redundant gateway's and protocol wise is really simple.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#402

Post by kazen44 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #378
Galanwe wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix" DHCP SLAAC was part of IPv6 since the original RFC, its a horribly over engineered stateless replacement of DHCP. Nobody asked for that.

> Nobody asked for that. I mean thats not true. SLAAC is great for public/untrusted networks where you just let the clients figure that shit out. the only thing thats a bummer is not being able to map DNS records to addresses, which is kinda the point, for privacy.

this is still kind of possible, by doing neighbour discovery and querying the host for its hostname with mdns.

In my opinion, this automatic mapping of DNS names to addresess is not part of the IP protocol, and shouldn't be.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#403

Post by tardedmeme »

ahoka wrote: post #386
everdrive wrote: post #372

This is the only topic that tempts me to create a throwaway account. (I have not given in) None of the IPv6 proponents are willing to acknowledge that IPv6 is a pain. All of them seem to have gone to some secret seminar somewhere where they receive their talking points: - Everyone who dislikes IPv6 doesn't know how NAT works and thinks it's the same as a firewall. - There's absolutely no downside whatsoever to being…

IPv6 is classic second system effect.

[flagged]

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#404

Post by tardedmeme »

imoverclocked wrote: post #371

Despite the article title, IPv6 is not the complication. The problem is that IPv4 is incumbent and IPv6 has to live along side of it. It doesn’t matter how it’s done, the dual stack nature of expanding the addressing system will always exist.

this is why people keep inventing nonsense like ipv8 which is worse than ipv6 in every possible way but they think because ipv6 has problems and ipv8 isn't ipv6, ipv8 doesn't have exactly the same problems.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#405

Post by tardedmeme »

zadikian wrote: post #319
johncolanduoni wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this have worked in practice, in a way that the NAT464/NAT64 schemes that most mobile operators use haven’t? Would IANA have dedicated some blocks of IPv4 to be used for IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses on the public internet?

Copy-paste the v4 blocks into v6 space under a common prefix, let's say 4::. Routers and software add ipv6 support (as they already have), but you only use 4::. Now once a user wants to switch, it looks the same. I'm still on NAT and DHCP. If I'm hitting Google.com on ipv6, I still use DNS4 and get 142.251.214.110, it actually sends to 4::142.251.214.110 takes the exact same route. Time has to pass for all users to s…

This exists already. But how does the ipv6 packet that says 4::1.2.3.4 get through all the ipv4 routers that have no idea how to read that, to the ipv4-only endpoint that doesn't know how to read it, and even if it did know, has no way to send a packet back to the sender's ipv6 source address?

We have it already with a translator box. It's called NAT64 and almost every cellular ISP in the whole wide world uses it.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#406

Post by tardedmeme »

bborud wrote: post #382

Why are we, in 2026, still talking about ipv6? It is time to give it up and start over. Yes, it is unlikely we can agree on an ipv4 successor. But at this point we should be able to agree ipv6 is not going to be it.

What do you think should be done instead? If ipv4 but with longer addresses (which is called ipv6) is not to your satisfaction, what would be? You want to completely overhaul the internet like in ipv8 and you think ipv8 doesn't have the exact same problems and thousands more just because it's never been deployed and nobody's encountered them yet?

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#407

Post by actionfromafar »

KaiserPro wrote: post #381
djha-skin wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obfuscation. By inspecting packets coming from my network now you can tell what MAC addresses are in my network and also internal network topology. It's part of the reason your cell phone feels the need to randomize its MAC.

> my network now you can tell what MAC addresses are in my network only if you're using EUI-64, but I don't think many things use that anymore. I think the only thing is cisco shit. but even then I suspect that they have RFC7217 on by default at least.

Ok, now let's translate to Important Meeting Language:

"something ipv6 something something you may be vulnerable if you buy network gear from a normal vendor"

"Ok, let's not do that ipv6 thing"

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#408

Post by tardedmeme »

hackthemack wrote: post #316
Plasmoid wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> keeping backward operational compatibility It is not possible to be backwards compatibility with a larger address space

You are right that a 32 bit ipv4 stack can not understand a 64 bit packet format. The thing I am trying to get at is not native compatibility, it is operational compatibility via translation. I know, I know, you will probably say that is what ipv6 bridges do. But in an ipv42 type setup, you would have determnistic embedding so that every ipv4 address is represented inside the larger address space. This would allow tr…

We have that, it's called ipv6. A section of the v6 address space is sectioned off to hold all v4 addresses

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#409

Post by torginus »

torginus wrote: post #367

My personal opinion of having worked with all layers of networking for my job without developing a comprehensive understanding, is this: We as consumers see and use the highest level, which is often https or friends, and due to the layered nature of the OSI stack, as often happens in software, if a layer is lacking in something, it gets fixed 1 or 2 layers up. If then said thing is then implemented on the layer its s…

I wish people actually put some thought into responding as opposed to just hitting the downvote button

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#410

Post by tardedmeme »

izacus wrote: post #357
Plasmoid wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> keeping backward operational compatibility It is not possible to be backwards compatibility with a larger address space

This is a fake argument. Noone is arguing for backwards compatibility. But there was also no necessity to demand reshaping networks and changing address assignment in a way that made migration extremely work intensive and hard to deploy in parallel.

How would you do it?
Post reply on HN