Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but debugging IPv6 issues is pretty far down on the list of things I want to learn.
Which european cloud provider is it?
The latest dedibox from Scaleway.
Why IPv6 is so complicated
471–480 of 519 posts
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#472I think we've been shunted into an alternate universe by NAT - one which reinforces the power of large companies because we essentially cannot communicate computer to computer without going through some service. As for security.........are we really that secure running code in our browsers that we downloaded from who knows where? Is nat really saving us? And now here we are with IPv6 and the real age of the network c…
Odd that all these pro ipv6 top level comments are greyed out.
Well, there's some food for paranoia :-D.
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#473IPv6 is awesome and I'm so happy that my local network is IPv6 and my provider offers IPv6 by default too.
I think it offers hope that we can serve up data in a much more peer-to-peer way without going via "bigcorp" servers.
To break the network as a security measure seems the absolute wrong fix to me and it's hard to understand the logic of it.
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You appear to not understand my argument. IPv6 is over 30 years old. The world has not embraced it. It isn’t going to. It is time to call it and try to figure out something that will work. You do understand that one need not have a better idea to make that observation? The observation is self-evident and can exist in the world regardless of what we think about IPv6 or the feasibility of figuring out something people…
That would indeed be a disaster because there is a lot of IPv6 usage and a lot more support from operating systems and hardware that has to exist first and now we should start again with something else would introduce a 3rd unsuccessful attempt with ....what benefits?
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#475The problems of IPv6 deployment are ones of incentives, not design. Increasingly, the vast majority of services are accessed via the service cone of various CDNs and IAAS providers directly at edge servers local to them, and at some point it may be that the industry decides that it's not worth providing ordinary internet users the ability to talk to each other directly at all. At which point, we might just as well ha…
I think they worked that out long ago - that segmenting users has no downside for them and IPv6 has minor upside. It's only mobile devices that help us but I'm sure there will be kinks in the chain that don't get fixed.
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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"
[dead]
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#477This 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…
This comment would make more sense if you said why IPv6 is a pain. It just works for me.
SLAAC and link-local is very different from DHCP/NAT/etc. in IPv4 world. Link-local addresses are pretty arcane in IPv4 while they are a central idea in IPv6.
That’s fine. As pointed out elsewhere, DHCP was relatively new when IPv6 was introduced. But it is a learning curve well past just knowing the difference between NAT and stateful firewall.
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
IMHO, the worst thing about dual-stack is that you have to do it at all. There are translation mechanisms but that doesn’t help when you have local devices (maybe IoT?) that don’t support IPv6.
I think that's why this new IPv6-Mostly stuff is so exciting. You can dual stack a network segment if some of those v4-only devices exist there, but IPv6-Mostly will make sure that the other devices stay on v6 (translated or native).
Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#479Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated
#480I 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…
> There are times where a AAAA record points to an IP that doesn't respond, but the A record responds and so on
> If it went down for months I wouldn't notice.
you are not alone.
I am building a service to monitor such events. usual up-time monitors mostly checks the v4 address.