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

481–490 of 519 posts

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#481

Post by pseudohadamard »

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…

Their NAT-phobia was legendary, and it carried through to other WGs as well like IPsec. The fact that IPsec broke NAT was a feature because it would force everyone to move to IPv6 ,for example.

The crazy was strong in those ones.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#482

Post by bborud »

tardedmeme wrote: post #451
bborud wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So now please get to step 2 of the argument: why do you think a world that did not embrace IPv6 (a false premise by the way, as 50% of internet traffic is IPv6) would embrace IPvBBORUD?

Again, you are not getting the argument. IPv6 is dead. It is better go give up and see what else can be done. Stop and think about what I'm saying before you react.

Are you suggesting we spend another 30 years beating a dead horse?

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#483

Post by speedgoose »

miyuru wrote: post #479
speedgoose wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latest dedibox from Scaleway.

Did you at least report it to scaleway, so they can fix the issue?

No, I did not bother because I don’t use IPv6 and I don’t plan to use it anytime soon.

Reporting an issue usually involves some effort, and the support may decide to follow up even if I say that I don’t need a fix. It’s better if someone who cares about IPv6 reports it.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#484

Post by icedchai »

bborud wrote: post #482
tardedmeme wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now please get to step 2 of the argument: why do you think a world that did not embrace IPv6 (a false premise by the way, as 50% of internet traffic is IPv6) would embrace IPvBBORUD?

Again, you are not getting the argument. IPv6 is dead. It is better go give up and see what else can be done. Stop and think about what I'm saying before you react. Are you suggesting we spend another 30 years beating a dead horse?

Google is seeing almost 50% IPv6 adoption: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...

Yes, it started out slow. But from 2016 to 2026 we've gone from 10% to almost 50%.

In some countries, it is much higher. It would be a waste of time to deploy yet another standard.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#485

Post by da_chicken »

kstrauser wrote: post #390
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 who dislikes IPv6 doesn't know how NAT works and thinks it's the same as a firewall. It would be easier if IPvOld proponents didn't keep saying that it is. Seriously, every time this topic comes up, at least one person expresses horror at the idea of running IPv6 without a firewall, unlike their safely NAT-firewalled IPv4 setup. > There's absolutely no downside whatsoever to being publicly addressable. I w…

Everyone likes to use DNS.

How do I use DNS on my home network to set up my home router? It's the same problem as TLS certificates on web interfaces for infrastructure.

And the commercial solution is going to be "pay us a subscription fee so your home device can get an Internet management interface on top of all the egregious data collection".

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#486

Post by throw0101a »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #446
Ekaros wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if they just double the address length the people would still cry about how 111.211.234.231.189.243.253.100 too hard to write and remember... There is no helping with people.

On extra byte shoved in a reserved field would have created 256 internets. That's two more for big countries and another for each small country and other planets. Then write in hex so addresses are shorter, require dhcp/sec etc, solved. My proposal for IPv7. ;-)

> On extra byte shoved in a reserved field would have created 256 internets.

Ah yes, the old IPv4 with 'just' adding more address byte(s) idea (you "IPv7"):

So you have to update DNS to create new resource record types ("A" is hard-coded to 32-bits) to support the new longer addresses, and have all user-land code start asking for, using, and understanding the new record replies. Just like with IPv6. (A lot of legacy code did not have room in data structures for multiple reply types: sure you'd get the "A" but unless you updated the code to get the "A7" address (for "IPv7" addresses) you could never get to the longer with address… just like IPv6 needed code updates to recognize AAAA, otherwise you were A-only.)

You need to update socket APIs to hold new data structures for longer addresses so your app can tell the kernel to send packets to the new addresses. Just like with IPv6. In any 'address extension' plan the legacy code cannot use the new address space; you have to:

* update the IP stack (like with IPv6)

* tell applications about new DNS records (like IPv6)

* set up translation layers for legacy-only code to reach extended-only destination (like IPv6 with DNS64/NAT64, CLAT, etc)

You're updating the exact same code paths in both the "IPv7" and IPv6 scenarios: dual-stack, DNS, socket address structures, dealing with legacy-only code that is never touched to deal with the larger address space.

Deploying the new "IPv7" code will take time, there will partial deployment of IPv7 is no different than having partial deployment of IPv6: you have islands of it and have to fall back to the 'legacy' IPv4-plain protocol when the new protocol fails to connect:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs

(This idea of "just add more addresses" comes up in every discussion of IPv6, and people do not bother thinking about what needs to change to "just" do it.)

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#487

Post by throw0101a »

zadikian wrote: post #387
johncolanduoni wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This already exists in two forms, and has for basically the entire history of production dual stack deployments. The first are IPv4 mapped addresses (of the form ::ffff:x.x.x.x) which instruct the local machine’s network stack to use a local IPv4 address to communicate to the server. This still requires each machine to have a routable IPv4 address (though not necessarily a public one - it can be used with a NAT44 rou…

I want something:x.x.x.x to get routed to me over v6 if I had x.x.x.x in v4, as the default and recommended way of contacting an ipv6 host, without needing additional config or middleboxes. Neither NAT64 or NAT46 do this really, and they're presented as alternatives rather than the native way. The closest was 6to4. rfc6343 goes into why that got deprecated. You'd either have "router 6to4" which required additional se…

> I want something:x.x.x.x to get routed to me over v6 if I had x.x.x.x in v4, as the default and recommended way of contacting an ipv6 host, without needing additional config or middleboxes.

Anyone with an IPv4 automatically got a 'free' IPv6 allocation:

> For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16.

> For example, the global IPv4 address 192.0.2.4 has the corresponding 6to4 prefix 2002:c000:0204::/48. This gives a prefix length of 48 bits, which leaves room for a 16-bit subnet field and 64 bit host addresses within the subnets.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4

"Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", etc:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3056

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#488

Post by throw0101a »

zadikian wrote: post #444
hackthemack wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opening a dual stack ipv4 and ipv6 does allow the service to accept both ipv4 and ipv6 connections. But I do not think that is what zadikian is getting at? It does not address the network level identity and reachability. There is no default, globally routable mapping where owning a ipv4 automatically gives you an equivalent identity in ipv6 that others can reach without translation infrastructure. The transition mech…

Yeah we're talking about the same thing. So my v4 is 70.94.201.31. My ISP didn't also give me 2002:70.94.201.31 or whatever.

> My ISP didn't also give me 2002:70.94.201.31 or whatever.

Traffic to 2002:70.94.201.31/48 is tunnelled via 70.94.201.31 with-in an IPv4 packet (encapsulation):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#489

Post by throw0101a »

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.

> 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.

Everyone with an IPv4 address automatically got an IPv6 allocation:

> For any 32-bit global IPv4 address that is assigned to a host, a 48-bit 6to4 IPv6 prefix can be constructed for use by that host (and if applicable the network behind it) by appending the IPv4 address to 2002::/16.

> For example, the global IPv4 address 192.0.2.4 has the corresponding 6to4 prefix 2002:c000:0204::/48. This gives a prefix length of 48 bits, which leaves room for a 16-bit subnet field and 64 bit host addresses within the subnets.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4

What does it mean to have an /48? Well, a IPv6 subnet is /64, so that's 16 bits for subnets. In IPv4 land, if you take a subnet to be /24, an allocation with 16 bits worth of subnets would be a /8.

So basically, with 6to4, every person with an IPv4 address got the equilvalent of a Class A in IPv6.

Re: Why IPv6 is so complicated

#490

Post by torginus »

yencabulator wrote: post #460
torginus wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are being downvoted because nothing you said seems to have anything to do with IPv6. It seems you think as long as it's not your problem, it's solved?

I feel like it's an entirely reasonable stance. The two valid approaches to solving a technical problem is either you try to solve all of it so that no one is concerned by it any more, or you solve as little of it as possible, but solve that part well, so there's a clear line on what's your job and what is not.

IP as a concept of 'digital PO box' falls short even if we upgrade to IPv6 - imagine talking to someone via voicechat on your phone, and moving from home Wifi to mobile data. They are two separate HW interfaces with their own identities and networking stacks, so moving your connection has to bypass the IP layer even on IPv6.

On the other hand if your job description is to shuttle packets between 'A' and 'B', where neither is guaranteed to be the actual sender or receiver, IP address becomes an implementation detail, and doing you job on IPv4 is much simpler, with the rube-goldberg stuff of actually figuring out how to connect the actual sender and recipient falling to higher level protocols.

So while I don't have strong feelings on the topic, this movement feels like a management reorg, where some business units get shuffled around, priorities change, but ultimately there's very little consistent motive or goal to the whole thing.

Post reply on HN