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

431–440 of 519 posts

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#431

Post by ninkendo »

simoncion wrote: post #346
ninkendo wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME nothing pays attention to when you set a flag to not do autonomous addressing. macOS and iOS don't respect it AFAICT, I don't recall what Linux does by default, but I don't remember having any success. But it's rather not really my point... best practices for IPv6 are to not do any of this, and you probably don't want to do it, because privacy addresses are an actually-important thing for privacy (so that sites c…

> IME nothing pays attention to when you set a flag to not do autonomous addressing. When I unset the Autonomous flag, Linux does the right thing, at least on the systems I have at hand. Android does the right thing. My Playstation 5 does the right thing. I'd be shocked if Windows doesn't do the right thing. While I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Apple devices absolutely do the wrong thing -given Apple's long his…

Y’know I see you in every thread about IPv6 and you have this terrible habit of completely ignoring the actual point someone is trying to make and bogging straight down into the minutiae of some technical detail instead.

I will stipulate that it’s possible to configure a network so that clients don’t set up their own addresses and use only DHCP. I will stipulate that I fucked up the configuration the last time I tried it. You’re obviously a lot more smart than me. Congratulations.

Now, yould you maybe get past that and look at my actual point, which is that multiple addresses is the expected and default behavior of IPv6, and is a big change from how people are used to doing things in IPv4? You don’t need to use every opportunity you can to flex your nerd cred at the expense of actually getting the point of what is being discussed.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#432

Post by zadikian »

boredatoms wrote: post #419
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…

Everyone forgets you can NAT ipv6 just like you would v4

You can, but the recommendation is no NAT with v6. Most routers don't even support it.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#433

Post by zadikian »

tardedmeme wrote: post #428
hackthemack wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The embedding I believe you are referring to is not a part of the global routing model. (maybe I am wrong?) What I am describing is making that kind of declaration central to the system in a deterministic, network wide mapping of ipv4 to the larger ipv6 space. The translation in ipv6 ended up being handled by a mix of mechanisms after the fact, rather than a single, uniform mapping model that tied directly to the add…

How would an embedding handle the other 99.999999999999% of addresses not embedded?

At least at first, you wouldn't, you'd embed all of them. Cloudflare has 1.1.1.1, so they get 1.1.1.1:: too.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#434

Post by hackeraccount »

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.

Dual stack isn't a terrible experience it's just usually bad. I wonder if more effort should have been put into making dual stack good instead of making IPv6 good?

Would that have been possible? No clue but my instinct is that most design decisions are trade offs and if you can imagine a trade there's someone out there clever enough to make it happen.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#435

Post by convolvatron »

thayne wrote: post #394
convolvatron wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not at all true. DHCP was very much part of the operational canon of the internet at the time, which is why it persisted as a model. V6 really wanted to back that out so that networks 'just worked' without depending on an administrator to manage that local service. NAT was already in use, and a substantial motivation for the IPv6 work was to provide an alternative before it got too entrenched, which sadly fail…

The RFC for dhcp was published in 1997, two years after the first RFC for IPv6, and three years after work on IPv6 started.

it was first published in 1993. I know it was in common use because I got into into argument with one of the authors, Greg Minshall, in 1995 about how basing it on bootp was really a useless idea. and I used it at my first job which I left in 1992. I sat in on the v6 working group, and remember the discussion about what to do about it. Steve pretty much just drove the consensus as usual and no one had any real objections.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#436

Post by Ekaros »

zadikian wrote: post #433
tardedmeme wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would an embedding handle the other 99.999999999999% of addresses not embedded?

At least at first, you wouldn't, you'd embed all of them. Cloudflare has 1.1.1.1, so they get 1.1.1.1:: too.

Not doing that was one of the key points of starting fresh with IPv6. Doing that would mean that you could end up with billions of routes to consider.

One reason for large address space is that those with networks could be placed sparsely and left room to grow. Thus allowing less routes in general.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#438

Post by hackeraccount »

arjie wrote: post #369

I have a /56 at the datacenter and Google Fiber gives me something like a /64 or something so I have full IPv6 connectivity everywhere. For the most part this is fine, but I've noticed the Internet is 'less reliable' on IPv6 and so in my head I still feel like it's a little iffy. There are times where a AAAA record points to an IP that doesn't respond, but the A record responds and so on. I just think it's the same a…

Man a /56 is not as big as you think. I'm an IPv6 neophyte but I'm starting to think about /64's the way I think I think about IPv4 /24's but 802.11 /24's y'know?

So Google Fiber giving a you a /64 is the same as saying - would you run your home network on a single /24. I mean ... you could but it feel like saying could you have one pair of shoes. XFinitity gives me a /60 and honestly I feel unhappy about it.

At my modestly sized job site we're easily using a couple 100 /24's - and I'm not in network operations so that number is probably wrong.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#439

Post by hackeraccount »

arjie wrote: post #369

I have a /56 at the datacenter and Google Fiber gives me something like a /64 or something so I have full IPv6 connectivity everywhere. For the most part this is fine, but I've noticed the Internet is 'less reliable' on IPv6 and so in my head I still feel like it's a little iffy. There are times where a AAAA record points to an IP that doesn't respond, but the A record responds and so on. I just think it's the same a…

Just for fun and bitterness I checked on Google Fiber.

"Google Fiber generally hands out a /56 IPv6 prefix delegation to residential customers, which allows for 256 subnets of \64's) each."

Totally confused as to why XFinity only gives me a /60. I think it's a benefit for people who get the business class - that is a /56.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#440

Post by zadikian »

Ekaros wrote: post #436
zadikian wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least at first, you wouldn't, you'd embed all of them. Cloudflare has 1.1.1.1, so they get 1.1.1.1:: too.

Not doing that was one of the key points of starting fresh with IPv6. Doing that would mean that you could end up with billions of routes to consider. One reason for large address space is that those with networks could be placed sparsely and left room to grow. Thus allowing less routes in general.

Indeed doing it this way would keep the fragmentation, or at least delay fixing it. That's what these articles always overlook, the goal of ipv6 wasn't to just add more bits, it was also to defrag the routes.

I think instead of 1.1.1.1::, you could do 4:1.1.1.1::, wait for v4 to be gone, then start building new topologies in the other /8s. Not sure how hard that is, but it seems easier than what they're trying to do now.

Post reply on HN